Reply to The Death of Private School As We Know It

Forum Index » Private & Independent Schools

Reply to "The Death of Private School As We Know It"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You should save accusations of racism for the very rare instances where it is actually true.  If admissions favor URMs and lessen reliance on grades and test scores, can the effects of that on the school not be discussed objectively without calling somebody racist?[/quote]

They are blatantly disfavoring certain races at the expense of other races, so the answer is no. [/quote]

Go read the entire thread.  It is racist when a supposed lesser reliance on grades and test scores is only a problem when URMs are involved. Do you think these schools care what rich, white people's grades and test scores were in the past? Or now?  They certainly don't care about grades and test scores when white athletes are involved.

So a lack of reliance on grades and test scores isn't your problem because then you'd be complaining about athletic recruiting, legacy and donor admits. And you certainly wouldn't be saying that these colleges were elite in the early 1900s when grades and test scores meant even less (and the applicant pool was severely curtailed).  So the only consistent theme that can reconcile these contradictory thoughts is that you only have a problem when URMs are supposedly the beneficiaries. It's not about merit and never has been. You don't want those people going to your precious 'elite colleges". That is a racist argument.

This is reinforced by the use of "Asian tennis players", which was also specifically cited as being a reason why elite colleges were less elite. Please explain to me how that isn't a racist argument. Are you going to argue that this is a symptom of the supposed lack of merit? If not, then what's wrong with having a few more Asian tennis players?

At the end of the day, the post basically was saying having URMs [u]and[/u] Asians (I'll assume the poster had no problem with tennis players generally but that's being generous) degraded the value of an elite college. You can't make excuses that (i) this is about grades and test scores because you fail on the Asian front and (ii) this is about having rich, connected people on campus because you fail by not including white FGLI students in your rant. So all you're left with is simply saying "Colleges are more elite and valued when they're mostly white and wealthy".

This is what was actually written and called racist. Go ahead and defend it.[/quote]

PP here.  I wrote the post to suggest that elite colleges have become less elite as they admitted fewer and fewer of the wealthy and connected.  My comment of about the Asian tennis players was just low level trolling and not part of the argument.  Around 25% of Harvard's students are URMs.  My discussion concerns admissions for the other 75% of the students.

I suspect the wealthy and connected have coalesced at schools that favor students from that background and that those schools will gain prestige at the expense of the ivies.  Where do the graduates of the elite New England boarding schools go now that the ivies do not favor them?  (I know that changed long ago.)  Where do wealthy students from top DC private schools go that will favorably admit the children of the wealthy and connected?  Which are the schools that wealthy (and accomplished) students seek out for networking and prestige? 
[/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