Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sty? lots of mit and caltech and totally miserable asian students there. they cannot wait to get to college, any college.

it's Stuy, since you're so familiar with it. You can look at their instagram page. The kids do great, which isn't a big shock, although money is often a big consideration. Every major college visits the school - some make pretty crazy announcements. UChicago said their director of admissions personally handles the Stuy file and reads all the essays.

Admissions is always 100% honest. Everything they tell you is gospel. LOL. They are professional bs artists. They tell every crowd what they want to hear.

Agree. College admissions are the worst con artists. If they were publicly traded companies they should serve hard time at Club Fed for fraud.

Do all schools get things like this every year?

JUNIOR FAMILIES;
Our colleagues at the University of Chicago are hosting a virtual event exclusively for Stuyvesant High School juniors and their families on Wednesday, May XX, at 7:00pm. Juniors and parents/guardians who are registered on Naviance have received an emal with the registration link from Mr. Makris. If you did not receive it, you may contact xxxxxx@schools.nyc.gov or the college office for the link.

Hosted for Stuyvesant by Jim Nondorf, Dean of College Admissions and Financial Aid at the University of Chicago, we will discuss frequently asked questions about the highly selective admissions process, how students’ experiences might translate to their college applications, and also share some information about UChicago’s response to the pandemic. Stuyvesant HS and UChicago alumnus David Axelrod will also be making a special appearance.

Before registering, please consider the following:

How is this allowed in 2023?

Colleges visit high schools all the time.

They sure don’t host “exclusive virtual events” like what’s described in the email above.

He is an AO. Stuy is his territory. Before Covid, he would fly to NYC and spend an evening at Stuy, no other schools were invited. He is now doing the same thing virtually.

Which is insanely discriminatory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sty? lots of mit and caltech and totally miserable asian students there. they cannot wait to get to college, any college.

it's Stuy, since you're so familiar with it. You can look at their instagram page. The kids do great, which isn't a big shock, although money is often a big consideration. Every major college visits the school - some make pretty crazy announcements. UChicago said their director of admissions personally handles the Stuy file and reads all the essays.

Admissions is always 100% honest. Everything they tell you is gospel. LOL. They are professional bs artists. They tell every crowd what they want to hear.

Agree. College admissions are the worst con artists. If they were publicly traded companies they should serve hard time at Club Fed for fraud.

Do all schools get things like this every year?

JUNIOR FAMILIES;
Our colleagues at the University of Chicago are hosting a virtual event exclusively for Stuyvesant High School juniors and their families on Wednesday, May XX, at 7:00pm. Juniors and parents/guardians who are registered on Naviance have received an emal with the registration link from Mr. Makris. If you did not receive it, you may contact xxxxxx@schools.nyc.gov or the college office for the link.

Hosted for Stuyvesant by Jim Nondorf, Dean of College Admissions and Financial Aid at the University of Chicago, we will discuss frequently asked questions about the highly selective admissions process, how students’ experiences might translate to their college applications, and also share some information about UChicago’s response to the pandemic. Stuyvesant HS and UChicago alumnus David Axelrod will also be making a special appearance.

Before registering, please consider the following:

How is this allowed in 2023?

Colleges visit high schools all the time.

They sure don’t host “exclusive virtual events” like what’s described in the email above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really impressed with Stuy’s college admissions. The major difference between the students at Stuy and a school line Sidwell is that the Sidwell kids are almost all hooked. Sidwell students are legacy and parents have likely donated $. Stuy kids are not hooked, not legacy and has a very large first gen and FARMs population. Not only are they not rich, they are poor, like they have to help support their families poor.

Come on, being First gen and low income IS hooked. It's a different kind of hook.

I'm a NYer and I think you overestimate how many Stuy kids are first gen. It's a small minority. Low-ish income: yes, many, but not Pell eligible. Second gen: sure, many, but that gets you thinking college-wise.

Stuy is 40-50 percent FARMS.

Lots have parents who were university-educated in their home country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really impressed with Stuy’s college admissions. The major difference between the students at Stuy and a school line Sidwell is that the Sidwell kids are almost all hooked. Sidwell students are legacy and parents have likely donated $. Stuy kids are not hooked, not legacy and has a very large first gen and FARMs population. Not only are they not rich, they are poor, like they have to help support their families poor.

Come on, being First gen and low income IS hooked. It's a different kind of hook.

I'm a NYer and I think you overestimate how many Stuy kids are first gen. It's a small minority. Low-ish income: yes, many, but not Pell eligible. Second gen: sure, many, but that gets you thinking college-wise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I don’t want to be misunderstood as not wanting to help kids from poor families. I totally support giving them scholarships, fellowships, financial aid, or just waive the tuition and even living expenses if their families can’t afford it. But that’s a totally separate issue from college admissions. First they have to be academically qualified. They shouldn’t be held to a lower academic standard than kids from “rich” families.

I think the problem is that you are defining "academic standards" as if that is easily defined, or untouched by white supremacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Your rich white law partner friend could’ve afforded to live anywhere & chose to live in a rich, segregated neighborhood.

State schools exist to serve the entire state. That means having students from the entire state.

I really really don’t want to bring religion into this, but the “rich white law partner” is a first-generation US-born child of Jewish immigrants. I know a lot of you have the stereotypical notion that all Jews are born rich. In fact, his family came here with NOTHING. They barely survived WW2. He himself had worked before college and worked part time during college. Talking about hard work and achieving the American Dream.

So you think that UC is justified in punishing his kids just because of his hard work and success? Because he bought an old house overlooking the Pacific Ocean?

So let's math this out. His parents barely survived WWII and he was born here, so probably in the late 40s/early 50s. That means his own kids probably attended college in the late 90s/early 2000s. The kids applying to schools now are the *grandchildren* of Holocaust survivors.

You think that the *grandchildren* of people who experienced poverty should be given special treatment even if they and their parents grew up wealthy?

Anonymous wrote:I’ve realized that people who claim to be against AA on the basis that it’s racial discrimination are really just against any kind of institutional preferences that don’t directly privilege THEIR kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I don’t want to be misunderstood as not wanting to help kids from poor families. I totally support giving them scholarships, fellowships, financial aid, or just waive the tuition and even living expenses if their families can’t afford it. But that’s a totally separate issue from college admissions. First they have to be academically qualified. They shouldn’t be held to a lower academic standard than kids from “rich” families.

But you understand the problem boils down to finances, right? Nature might have provided two kids with the same potential, but ultimately the rich kid has a MUCH higher likelihood of outperforming the poor kid. It is why I have a hard time with TJ wannabes crying foul when the majority of the complainers have been privately supplementing their children's education and the kid has never taking a standardized test he/she hasn't prepped for. And if the follow up complaint is that the poor parents should demand more of their local schools, that's sort of a red herring because it doesn't address the supplementing. Kids at Longfellow, whose AAP program is arguably one of the best in the county, still supplement and test prep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I don’t want to be misunderstood as not wanting to help kids from poor families. I totally support giving them scholarships, fellowships, financial aid, or just waive the tuition and even living expenses if their families can’t afford it. But that’s a totally separate issue from college admissions. First they have to be academically qualified. They shouldn’t be held to a lower academic standard than kids from “rich” families.

You don’t get to segregate yourself from the masses & then not face consequences for that in admissions. We have a problem in the US of too many people literally refusing to live in certain areas or send their kids to certain schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I don’t want to be misunderstood as not wanting to help kids from poor families. I totally support giving them scholarships, fellowships, financial aid, or just waive the tuition and even living expenses if their families can’t afford it. But that’s a totally separate issue from college admissions. First they have to be academically qualified. They shouldn’t be held to a lower academic standard than kids from “rich” families.

Current measures of admissions such as standardized testing & extracurriculars are highly correlated with race and family income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I don’t want to be misunderstood as not wanting to help kids from poor families. I totally support giving them scholarships, fellowships, financial aid, or just waive the tuition and even living expenses if their families can’t afford it. But that’s a totally separate issue from college admissions. First they have to be academically qualified. They shouldn’t be held to a lower academic standard than kids from “rich” families.

Nobody cares what you think. Some kids have had vastly more resources poured into them than others & have faced more challenges than others. Some kids have more unrealized potential than others. Public universities exist to serve the entire state, and should and do admit kids from every nook & cranny of that particular state.

Anonymous wrote:Regardless, the point I’m making is that intelligence has nothing to do with race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Your rich white law partner friend could’ve afforded to live anywhere & chose to live in a rich, segregated neighborhood.

State schools exist to serve the entire state. That means having students from the entire state.

I really really don’t want to bring religion into this, but the “rich white law partner” is a first-generation US-born child of Jewish immigrants. I know a lot of you have the stereotypical notion that all Jews are born rich. In fact, his family came here with NOTHING. They barely survived WW2. He himself had worked before college and worked part time during college. Talking about hard work and achieving the American Dream.

So you think that UC is justified in punishing his kids just because of his hard work and success? Because he bought an old house overlooking the Pacific Ocean?

I don’t think it’s “punishing,” but I think UC is justified in pursuing economic & geographic diversity. He specifically chose where to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Are you calling poor people lazy? GTFO

No. But wealth is a good indication of innate intelligence, special talent (e.g. sports), and most importantly, work ethic.

Wealth a good indication of how wealthy your parents were.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Your rich white law partner friend could’ve afforded to live anywhere & chose to live in a rich, segregated neighborhood.

State schools exist to serve the entire state. That means having students from the entire state.

I really really don’t want to bring religion into this, but the “rich white law partner” is a first-generation US-born child of Jewish immigrants. I know a lot of you have the stereotypical notion that all Jews are born rich. In fact, his family came here with NOTHING. They barely survived WW2. He himself had worked before college and worked part time during college. Talking about hard work and achieving the American Dream.

So you think that UC is justified in punishing his kids just because of his hard work and success? Because he bought an old house overlooking the Pacific Ocean?