The goal of college education is education. All the social engineering and the "college experience" are extras and byproducts of the original goal, and shouldn't be paid much attention or require additional $$$ at all. Oh, and no athletic recruitments - professional athletes belong to professional sports teams, and the colleges assemble their teams from whoever happened to be there because of education.

That's how the schools functioned in my home country in Europe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action in admissions stokes animosity on campuses. The affirmative action admits feel stupid and isolated and then they get angry. It’s cruel to admit below bar kids in the first place — they would be far happier at a college with similar acuity peers.

It’s even worse for the minority kids who would have gotten in regardless of affirmative action and yet are still stigmatized by people assuming they are less qualified.

But are colleges really admitting URM with much lower stats? Those stats still have to be reported so I doubt schools are admitting students who are very far below in terms of GPA/SATs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should have no involvement in college application process.

x1000

Yeah, that’s real smart, you tell them what time to be home and what to wear, but don’t have any involvement in the first big consequential, expensive decision they will ever make. That makes a lot of sense.

That’s sarcasm, of course. It’s incredibly stupid. It’s a family expense and a family decision, and good family work together to make good choices and help out.

My kids have three siblings--which are of course, part of "the family." I can't imagine any of my kids being part of a "family decision" on where their sibling goes to college.

You can't imagine, but it's true, unless you have unlimited $$$ to spend. For most families with 4 children, when the oldest choses where to go, the fact that there are 3 more coming up is a major consideration. And if one of them has special needs, be it a disability or being a world class cello player, that's part of the decision too.

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action in admissions stokes animosity on campuses. The affirmative action admits feel stupid and isolated and then they get angry. It’s cruel to admit below bar kids in the first place — they would be far happier at a college with similar acuity peers.

Whoa. This assumes students benefitting from affirmative action don’t have the academics. That’s really…something. Yeah, you definitely should keep this thinking to yourself.

Please broaden your circle, because there are many highly qualified POC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

You are stupid. Every war ever fought, and every war ever won, had armies that predominantly had men age 18-22 in the front lines. Their brains were self-evidently well developed enough for combat. And a lot of those men enjoyed it.

I certainly don’t want my kids doing that but that doesn’t mean “it shouldn’t be allowed”.

Why not? They might "enjoy it."

Interesting. I’ve spoken to many a WW2 vet. Can’t say any claimed to have enjoyed the killing, dirt, cold, lack of food, etc. Any who say they enjoyed it spoke to people in cushy positions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges admission pay attention to gpa, scores, and maybe a little to essays. Everyone is acting like they dissect the application. This is 100% not true.

This is 100% NOT TRUE! If it is true how can you reason the admissions that happen so subjectively? i.e. a kid with higher gpa and test scores is denied admission but a kid with lesser stats is admitted?

Um, because the kid has something the school wants. It doesn’t mean the school looks deeply at essays. They’ll overlook GPA or find a way not to count that GPA if they need a certain skill like the best tuba player or soccer goalie.

A colleague of mine went to Yale because he was an athlete. He was very insecure about his academic profile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should have no involvement in college application process.

x1000

Yeah, that’s real smart, you tell them what time to be home and what to wear, but don’t have any involvement in the first big consequential, expensive decision they will ever make. That makes a lot of sense.

That’s sarcasm, of course. It’s incredibly stupid. It’s a family expense and a family decision, and good family work together to make good choices and help out.

Could not agree with this more.

My family had zero involvement other than telling me they weren’t going to help. I survived, but there is no way in hell I’d do that to my kids.

College is basically warehousing children to give their brains time to develop further. It’s training wheels for adulthood. The education received is entirely incidental to that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standardized test scores matter more than grades.

It’s a controversial opinion alright. One that is consistently contradicted by the vast majority of studies not sponsored by College Board. I was phi beta kappa and came in with a standardized test score of bottom 20%.

Depends on what you think matters more in life. Grades= how hard you work. Standardized tests= innate intelligence. I think both are very important, but hard work is very important.

Agree they are both good important and IMO work ethic is a lot more important. The problem I have with your point is that standardized tests measure “innate intelligence.” They don’t. And don’t even claim too. The College Board itself says so. Per a PBS Frontline article: Originally (100 years ago) “the SAT was called the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the word "aptitude" meaning that the test measured an innate ability, rather than knowledge acquired through schooling. Today, the test administered by the College Board is still called SAT, but the name is just an acronym, with the letters no longer standing for anything. This fact illustrates the uncertainty that has surrounded what exactly the SAT measures.”

“According to the College Board, the SAT now does not measure any innate ability. Wayne Camara, Director of the Office of research at the College Board told FRONTLINE that the SAT measures "developed reasoning," which he described as the skills that students develop not only in school but also outside of school. He pointed out, for example, that students who read a lot, both in and out of school, are more likely to do well on the SAT and in college. The College Board says that the best way to prepare for the SAT is to read a lot and to take rigorous academic courses.”


There is no ONE test that measures “intelligence”. Intelligence is too multifaceted and certain types of skills require different types of intelligence. Architects have different (notice not more or less) intelligence than a pianist, which is again different from an accountant or banker.

This confusion is why so many are hung up on the SAT/ACT. They think it validates their children are the special geniuses they want them to be and marks them as “deserving” of the elite college. In reality the difference between a 1400 and 1600 is not meaningful. Almost any high GPA kid who scores 1400 can thrive at any college. It’s best use is as a baseline comparison for anomalies. The 4.0 kid who has an 950 looks like an anomaly. Maybe the school was too easy. But there is no way the SAT/ACT is more predictive of success on the whole than GPA is. The tests can help contextualice the grades at best.

Anonymous wrote:You are not a bad parent for making your child take out loans to pay for their college even if you could afford to finance it yourself.

It’s also okay you paid off your own debt instead of financing a 529.

+1,000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with sub 1000 SAT scores don’t belong in college

Daughter got 980 on sat. Went to 3rd rate college for elementary education. Doing great teaching at MCPS, very well liked and excellent educator. So STFU.

Do I count? College graduate but I just barely broke 1000. My guidance counselor’s words still haunt me, “Larla, if your verbal scores matched your math scores, we’d be having a different conversation.”

Ended up at a SLAC party school. English degree. I’ve been employed as a recruiter, a contractor administrator, a judicial clerk, an editor and now am in healthcare management, writing policy, editing manuals and teaching protocols.

And I love when people ask me about my alma mater that they’ve never heard of before. I think they expect to hear something entirely different! Go, Mighty Mice!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with sub 1000 SAT scores don’t belong in college

Daughter got 980 on sat. Went to 3rd rate college for elementary education. Doing great teaching at MCPS, very well liked and excellent educator. So STFU.

Do I count? College graduate but I just barely broke 1000. My guidance counselor’s words still haunt me, “Larla, if your verbal scores matched your math scores, we’d be having a different conversation.”

Ended up at a SLAC party school. English degree. I’ve been employed as a recruiter, a contractor administrator, a judicial clerk, an editor and now am in healthcare management, writing policy, editing manuals and teaching protocols.

Anonymous wrote:People with sub 1000 SAT scores don’t belong in college

Daughter got 980 on sat. Went to 3rd rate college for elementary education. Doing great teaching at MCPS, very well liked and excellent educator. So STFU.

Anonymous wrote:The only things colleges should look at are grades, test scores, And maybe an open ended question exam of some sorts. The brightest should get into the best colleges, and that’s it.
The rest can go to less rigorous ones.

Best colleges will end up 70% Asian 20% white 3% Hispanic 2% black and 5% other like TJ high school and screams of rage about lack of racial equity will ensue.

That going to highly rejective colleges is better or more prestigious than state schools.