Reply to My kid isn't getting in

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "My kid isn't getting in"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OP,  thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.[/quote]

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.[/quote]

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.[/quote]

You have no idea, do you? [/quote]

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in. [/quote]

+1[/quote]

All of what to say could be true.  Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool.   Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.[/quote]

Says you.  What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score?  It is very debatable.[/quote]

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS.  And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”.  It is not true.   There is no debate.[/quote]

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.[/quote]

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue![/quote]

Colleges include recommendations now and you could argue recommendations are subjective so why do they include them? Some include interviews and you could also argue those are subjective.  If the Varsity Blues scandal taught us nothing else, it’s that people can find ways to cheat on the “objective” tests as well.  If you only used what you say are “objective” measurements GPA and test score, you would have more GPA/test scores in the same range than HYPSM could possibly accept and then what do they use?  If using weighted GPA you would also have to quantify what was available at the school. You would have to compare a 4.7 GPA and a school where kids take all honors and APs from freshman year to someone that has a 4.5 and is the valedictorian at a school that either offered limited APs or limited how many students could take.  But by your “objective” standard 4.7 at school where that puts the student in the top 15% is greater than 4.5 where the student is the valedictorian. Both students can do the work and colleges want to be able to pick who they want that they feel will handle the work and contribute to the community.  Just because you want to go after minorities and try to state your opinions as facts doesn’t make it true.[/quote]
I don’t read that the PP was “going after minorities”.   And let’s be honest - the Covid high schools years were a joke if your kid was in a public high school in the DMV.  They were not functioning and basically threw grade inflation up to new heights.  So that high gpa is no indication of anything other than laziness on the part of the public school system. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics