Where did your 33/34 ACT, 3.9 UW GPA get in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the colleges, including Harvard, don't give a shit about the true purpose of affirmative action and their ethical and moral role in making it a success for the greater good of the society. They all want easy way out to check the box and tout the number admitted. They don't care if the student and the family are wealthy and recent immigrants from Africa or the student is from a wealthy, well educated, wellconnected black family. In fact, the colleges prefer it that way so that they don't need to provide academic support services, if needed by the true affirmative action admits. If the colleges really care about it, with their filthy rich tax-exempt endowments they would adopt some school districts in poor neighborhoods and promote Pre-K to 12 schooling and after-school enrichment and use those school districts as pipelines into their Freshman admissions and to show case them as models for success.

The law should be changed for affirmative action to be available to children born only in the U.S. and parental income less than median income of U.S. households ($60K to $75K). There should be birth place and income verification before affirmative action admission is awarded.

Again: Its. Not. Affirmative. Action.

And, for the record, Harvard and other elite colleges do consider family income when admitting, and the Harvard lawsuit showed being poor was an ADVANTAGE in admissions, particularly when coming off the waitlist (where the opposite is true at most colleges which have far smaller endowments).

I said the law should be changed as to how Affirmative Action is defined. It should be restricted to a child born in the U.S. only (of the same races currently recognized as URM) and the household income should be no more than the U.S. median (currently between $65K and $75K).

What does Harvard and other elite colleges considering family income when admitting have to do with what I am proposing. Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth, parental education and occupation, and student's birthplace. There colleges will not be able to ignore the wrath of true Social Justice Warriors (hopefully SJWs are not from privileged families).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is your private school packaging and presenting the kids?

Just found out the 2019 matriculation of my NE private HS:
Out of 120 kids:

19 Harvard
8 Dartmouth
3 UPenn
2 Stanford
1 Columbia
1 Cornell
1 Brown
1 MIT

8 Middlebury
5 Williams
5 Tufts
3 U Chicago
3 Georgetown
3 Duke

Are these kids any smarter than yours? No. Do half the class have hooks? Probably not. The counselors have an impact.

Nobles?

HA! There is only about a million +/- private schools in the northeast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is your private school packaging and presenting the kids?

Just found out the 2019 matriculation of my NE private HS:
Out of 120 kids:

19 Harvard
8 Dartmouth
3 UPenn
2 Stanford
1 Columbia
1 Cornell
1 Brown
1 MIT

8 Middlebury
5 Williams
5 Tufts
3 U Chicago
3 Georgetown
3 Duke

Are these kids any smarter than yours? No. Do half the class have hooks? Probably not. The counselors have an impact.

Nobles?

Not the poster but sounds like Nobles. And poster is in denial - Nobles is about money and how much the parents donate to Nobles and the college. And they are using athletics plus good grades (Nobles has grade inflation) to get in

So affirmative action for rich white people. Got it.

There are also a fair number of Harvard professors that send their kids to Nobles. That is a huge hook, obviously.

At 50k a year when they already have the faculty hook? I can see Rox Latin but not Nobles unless a Dean.

How have I never heard of these schools? This blog is titled "DC...." is it not? Perhaps I'm just a FCPS hick.

+1

Well, at least you are not in denial like most of the people in certain areas of Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid attends a top local private and I can tell you that the kids I know who are hooked and are applying early to the place where they have a leg up (ie legacy) also are the full package. They have top grades and scores etc. Don't assume that their only advantage is the legacy.

Born on 3rd, thinks they hit a triple. They are the "full package" bc their rich parents can afford a excellent learning environment and other enrichment activities. -- signed Ivy league graduate who attended elite private HS and was legacy at the Ivy I attended.

You’re right, they must all suk. All the millions of Ivy alums’ millions of offspring— all dumb as doornails and uncoordinated as the stooges. How dare their parents have jobs and careers to pay for anything I cannot.

Apparently you don’t grasp what born on third means.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the colleges, including Harvard, don't give a shit about the true purpose of affirmative action and their ethical and moral role in making it a success for the greater good of the society. They all want easy way out to check the box and tout the number admitted. They don't care if the student and the family are wealthy and recent immigrants from Africa or the student is from a wealthy, well educated, wellconnected black family. In fact, the colleges prefer it that way so that they don't need to provide academic support services, if needed by the true affirmative action admits. If the colleges really care about it, with their filthy rich tax-exempt endowments they would adopt some school districts in poor neighborhoods and promote Pre-K to 12 schooling and after-school enrichment and use those school districts as pipelines into their Freshman admissions and to show case them as models for success.

The law should be changed for affirmative action to be available to children born only in the U.S. and parental income less than median income of U.S. households ($60K to $75K). There should be birth place and income verification before affirmative action admission is awarded.

Again: Its. Not. Affirmative. Action.

And, for the record, Harvard and other elite colleges do consider family income when admitting, and the Harvard lawsuit showed being poor was an ADVANTAGE in admissions, particularly when coming off the waitlist (where the opposite is true at most colleges which have far smaller endowments).

I said the law should be changed as to how Affirmative Action is defined. It should be restricted to a child born in the U.S. only (of the same races currently recognized as URM) and the household income should be no more than the U.S. median (currently between $65K and $75K).

What does Harvard and other elite colleges considering family income when admitting have to do with what I am proposing. Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth, parental education and occupation, and student's birthplace. There colleges will not be able to ignore the wrath of true Social Justice Warriors (hopefully SJWs are not from privileged families).

"Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth,"

No they wouldn't because they do not have any "affirmative action admits".

[Anonymous]

If you check the Latino box and don't celebrate any part of your heritage and essentially white - shame on you.

[Anonymous]

If you think we should lie, shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Please take your affirmative action conversation to another thread. Let's bring this back to the OPs topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you check the Latino box and don't celebrate any part of your heritage and essentially white - shame on you.

I like tacos and Ricky Martin. Can I be Hispanic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you check the Latino box and don't celebrate any part of your heritage and essentially white - shame on you.

I like tacos and Ricky Martin. Can I be Hispanic?

I think I’m a victim when I’m more privileged than anyone. Can I be white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the colleges, including Harvard, don't give a shit about the true purpose of affirmative action and their ethical and moral role in making it a success for the greater good of the society. They all want easy way out to check the box and tout the number admitted. They don't care if the student and the family are wealthy and recent immigrants from Africa or the student is from a wealthy, well educated, wellconnected black family. In fact, the colleges prefer it that way so that they don't need to provide academic support services, if needed by the true affirmative action admits. If the colleges really care about it, with their filthy rich tax-exempt endowments they would adopt some school districts in poor neighborhoods and promote Pre-K to 12 schooling and after-school enrichment and use those school districts as pipelines into their Freshman admissions and to show case them as models for success.

The law should be changed for affirmative action to be available to children born only in the U.S. and parental income less than median income of U.S. households ($60K to $75K). There should be birth place and income verification before affirmative action admission is awarded.

Again: Its. Not. Affirmative. Action.

And, for the record, Harvard and other elite colleges do consider family income when admitting, and the Harvard lawsuit showed being poor was an ADVANTAGE in admissions, particularly when coming off the waitlist (where the opposite is true at most colleges which have far smaller endowments).

I said the law should be changed as to how Affirmative Action is defined. It should be restricted to a child born in the U.S. only (of the same races currently recognized as URM) and the household income should be no more than the U.S. median (currently between $65K and $75K).

What does Harvard and other elite colleges considering family income when admitting have to do with what I am proposing. Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth, parental education and occupation, and student's birthplace. There colleges will not be able to ignore the wrath of true Social Justice Warriors (hopefully SJWs are not from privileged families).

"Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth,"

No they wouldn't because they do not have any "affirmative action admits".

You are excused for your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the colleges, including Harvard, don't give a shit about the true purpose of affirmative action and their ethical and moral role in making it a success for the greater good of the society. They all want easy way out to check the box and tout the number admitted. They don't care if the student and the family are wealthy and recent immigrants from Africa or the student is from a wealthy, well educated, wellconnected black family. In fact, the colleges prefer it that way so that they don't need to provide academic support services, if needed by the true affirmative action admits. If the colleges really care about it, with their filthy rich tax-exempt endowments they would adopt some school districts in poor neighborhoods and promote Pre-K to 12 schooling and after-school enrichment and use those school districts as pipelines into their Freshman admissions and to show case them as models for success.

The law should be changed for affirmative action to be available to children born only in the U.S. and parental income less than median income of U.S. households ($60K to $75K). There should be birth place and income verification before affirmative action admission is awarded.

Again: Its. Not. Affirmative. Action.

And, for the record, Harvard and other elite colleges do consider family income when admitting, and the Harvard lawsuit showed being poor was an ADVANTAGE in admissions, particularly when coming off the waitlist (where the opposite is true at most colleges which have far smaller endowments).

I said the law should be changed as to how Affirmative Action is defined. It should be restricted to a child born in the U.S. only (of the same races currently recognized as URM) and the household income should be no more than the U.S. median (currently between $65K and $75K).

What does Harvard and other elite colleges considering family income when admitting have to do with what I am proposing. Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth, parental education and occupation, and student's birthplace. There colleges will not be able to ignore the wrath of true Social Justice Warriors (hopefully SJWs are not from privileged families).

Two types of SJW: the full ride first gen that does gender studies and works for peanuts at some liberal NGO, and the wealthy ones who never had plans for a real major or job and work at higher paying non profits living off the overhead from donations. Good times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the colleges, including Harvard, don't give a shit about the true purpose of affirmative action and their ethical and moral role in making it a success for the greater good of the society. They all want easy way out to check the box and tout the number admitted. They don't care if the student and the family are wealthy and recent immigrants from Africa or the student is from a wealthy, well educated, wellconnected black family. In fact, the colleges prefer it that way so that they don't need to provide academic support services, if needed by the true affirmative action admits. If the colleges really care about it, with their filthy rich tax-exempt endowments they would adopt some school districts in poor neighborhoods and promote Pre-K to 12 schooling and after-school enrichment and use those school districts as pipelines into their Freshman admissions and to show case them as models for success.

The law should be changed for affirmative action to be available to children born only in the U.S. and parental income less than median income of U.S. households ($60K to $75K). There should be birth place and income verification before affirmative action admission is awarded.

Again: Its. Not. Affirmative. Action.

And, for the record, Harvard and other elite colleges do consider family income when admitting, and the Harvard lawsuit showed being poor was an ADVANTAGE in admissions, particularly when coming off the waitlist (where the opposite is true at most colleges which have far smaller endowments).

I said the law should be changed as to how Affirmative Action is defined. It should be restricted to a child born in the U.S. only (of the same races currently recognized as URM) and the household income should be no more than the U.S. median (currently between $65K and $75K).

What does Harvard and other elite colleges considering family income when admitting have to do with what I am proposing. Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth, parental education and occupation, and student's birthplace. There colleges will not be able to ignore the wrath of true Social Justice Warriors (hopefully SJWs are not from privileged families).

"Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth,"

No they wouldn't because they do not have any "affirmative action admits".

You are excused for your ignorance.

Ha! Sorry, no, I am 100% correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid attends a top local private and I can tell you that the kids I know who are hooked and are applying early to the place where they have a leg up (ie legacy) also are the full package. They have top grades and scores etc. Don't assume that their only advantage is the legacy.

Wow. Your snowflake really deserved it then!!! Silly poster. Do you not realize that their full package was statistically slightly less of a full package??? Their were thousands more that were as good or better without the hook.

I didn't say it was my kid or whether they were admitted. I said that the kids I'm referencing would be competitive under any circumstances. Legacy just makes them harder to beat. I'm not saying that's fair, or that they won't edge out someone equally qualified, just challenging the assumption that legacy applicants are less qualified than other applicants.

[Anonymous]

Re: the private school where there were 120 kids and approximately half of the kids got into "brand name" schools, am I the only one who is wondering why only half? If you are paying 30-50K a year for K-12 education, I'd imagine each family values education above ALL ELSE and therefore every single kid attending should be academically off the freaking charts. So, why are only half the kids going to those types of schools? That seems kind of low to me.