Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

Clearly one group isn't out-performing on all metrics if they can't get decent personality scores.

Believe it or not when you go in for that job interview, you are going to be assigned a "personality score" that will determine whether you get that job, regardless of your "objective" skills and qualifications. Managers want people with skills and that "holistic" nebulous quality you call "likeability."

Yep. I work for a tech start up and many applicants can’t get past our CEO. He likes extroverts. Fair or not, it’s why he likes and he finds them.

Your CEO actually talked to the applicants like the Harvard interviewers, but the Harvard AOs didn't even see the face of applicants

Alumni interviewers are not professional college admission officers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

Clearly one group isn't out-performing on all metrics if they can't get decent personality scores.

Believe it or not when you go in for that job interview, you are going to be assigned a "personality score" that will determine whether you get that job, regardless of your "objective" skills and qualifications. Managers want people with skills and that "holistic" nebulous quality you call "likeability."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

Also CalTech, Fall Enrollment 2022-23
https://www.registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

CalTech is actually one school doing it fairly right without test scores and it can do that because it has extremely small number of elite groups of students. 
Students have national level and international level awards and nobody would question their qualifications in general.

--- American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
- Asian American 44%
--- Black or African American 7%
--- Hispanic/Latinx 22%
--- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2%
--- White 45%
--- International 9%
--- Race/ethnicity unknown 1%

If done relatively right, it would at least look like this I guess if you agree with CalTech way.

CalTech grad rate is 89.5%. Failing out or leaving for industry

I wonder who the 10% are

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

Clearly one group isn't out-performing on all metrics if they can't get decent personality scores.

Believe it or not when you go in for that job interview, you are going to be assigned a "personality score" that will determine whether you get that job, regardless of your "objective" skills and qualifications. Managers want people with skills and that "holistic" nebulous quality you call "likeability."

Yep. I work for a tech start up and many applicants can’t get past our CEO. He likes extroverts. Fair or not, it’s why he likes and he finds them.

Your CEO actually talked to the applicants like the Harvard interviewers, but the Harvard AOs didn't even see the face of applicants

Alumni interviewers are not professional college admission officers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

Clearly one group isn't out-performing on all metrics if they can't get decent personality scores.

Believe it or not when you go in for that job interview, you are going to be assigned a "personality score" that will determine whether you get that job, regardless of your "objective" skills and qualifications. Managers want people with skills and that "holistic" nebulous quality you call "likeability."

Yep. I work for a tech start up and many applicants can’t get past our CEO. He likes extroverts. Fair or not, it’s why he likes and he finds them.

Your CEO actually talked to the applicants like the Harvard interviewers, but the Harvard AOs didn't even see the face of applicants

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harvard become majority Asian, won't it immediately become far less desirable for non-Asians?

For the same reason that many top black and white kids no longer have any interest in TJ?

more like they decided they coudn't compete?

Anyways, I think it'll auto-correct.
it gets less desirable for Asians as well.

a good byproduct affect could be more leveled colleges at least for top 50 100 schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

Clearly one group isn't out-performing on all metrics if they can't get decent personality scores.

Believe it or not when you go in for that job interview, you are going to be assigned a "personality score" that will determine whether you get that job, regardless of your "objective" skills and qualifications. Managers want people with skills and that "holistic" nebulous quality you call "likeability."

Yep. I work for a tech start up and many applicants can’t get past our CEO. He likes extroverts. Fair or not, it’s why he likes and he finds them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

Clearly one group isn't out-performing on all metrics if they can't get decent personality scores.

Believe it or not when you go in for that job interview, you are going to be assigned a "personality score" that will determine whether you get that job, regardless of your "objective" skills and qualifications. Managers want people with skills and that "holistic" nebulous quality you call "likeability."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

Also CalTech, Fall Enrollment 2022-23
https://www.registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

CalTech is actually one school doing it fairly right without test scores and it can do that because it has extremely small number of elite groups of students. 
Students have national level and international level awards and nobody would question their qualifications in general.

--- American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
--- Asian American 44%
--- Black or African American 7%
--- Hispanic/Latinx 22%
--- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2%
--- White 45%
--- International 9%
--- Race/ethnicity unknown 1%

If done relatively right, it would at least look like this I guess if you agree with CalTech way.

CalTech grad rate is 89.5%. Failing out or leaving for industry

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

Also CalTech, Fall Enrollment 2022-23
https://www.registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

CalTech is actually one school doing it fairly right without test scores and it can do that because it has extremely small number of elite groups of students. 
Students have national level and international level awards and nobody would question their qualifications in general.

--- American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
--- Asian American 44%
--- Black or African American 7%
--- Hispanic/Latinx 22%
--- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2%
--- White 45%
--- International 9%
--- Race/ethnicity unknown 1%

If done relatively right, it would at least look like this I guess if you agree with CalTech way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We get that is the argument, but what is the solution that is more fair? I see both ways but tests are at least somewhat objective. And I have been on BOTH sides of the aisle here, growing up poor, first gen, no test prep options vs. what I can now offer my kid.

"more fair"?

Basketball players are judge by how well they play basketball
Dancers are judged by how well they dance
Legacies are judged by how well they help fund the school and if they will provide connections to current students
Some kids are judged by SAT scores
Some kids are judged by the fact they started a movement after somebody shot up their school


If you want to be in the top 5% there are many ways to do that and GPA and SAT is only one way. Stop using that measure to say the other kids were not qualified.
If 20 kids are great basketball players the coach picks the 5 he wants, you don't have to understand why he picked those 5 kids. I don't care if you scored more baskets than the 5 he chose.

The core issue is that those schools that have been practicing holistic admissions still weren’t getting the “desired” diversity that they wanted when looking at all of those factors you’ve mentioned without directly looking at race. As a result, at least Harvard systemically and artificially reduced totally subjective personality scores on Asian applicants at the admissions office level. Let’s stop with the trope that Asian applicants were just robots studying for grades and test scores - the Harvard disclosures showed that Asian applicants also had leadership positions and extracurricular activities in line (or better) than all other races. The one factor that changed was the admissions office that never met these applicants putting in lower personality scores for Asians. THAT is patently unfair no matter how much one believes in a desired outcome.

We know it’s patently unfair because if you replace “Asian” with any other race (or religion or sex or sexual orientation), it would be recognized as racist right away. If Black students were getting the best grades, garnering the highest test scores, and had extracurricular activities and interview scores that were in line with every other race… but then the Harvard admissions office assigned a totally subjective personality score to Blacks that were lower than all other races because they were worried that Blacks would be too overrepresented at Harvard, that would rightfully be called out as racist immediately. If you applied Jewish people in that hypothetical, it would rightly be called antisemitic immediately (and that’s actually what happened at elite schools in the middle of the 20th century - it’s why holistic admissions exist in the first place). For some reason, people either don’t recognize that the fact this pattern is happening to Asians is racist or, arguably even worse, effectively know that it’s racist but think that the ends justify the means, it appalling to me.

By and large, I’m a liberal on cultural issues. I volunteer for the Democratic Party and will be voting for them on Tuesday up and down the ballot for many reasons. However, on this particular issue, too many liberals seem to have a complete blind spot. I firmly believe in DEI efforts as a goal, but they simply can’t use racist policies (against a minority group, no less) to achieve such goals as that defeats the idea behind DEI initiatives in the first place.

Our work decided to meet certain markers for diversity one being hire more Veterans and part-time workers, so we ran number and realized we did not have any Veterans (or maybe it was .1%). So we found out where Veterans look for jobs, we reached out to colleges that veterans attended, and we worked with the VA to get qualified Veterans.

What we realized is that our advertising process was inadequate to find veterans that were qualified. It was our process, not that there are NO qualified veterans.

If you only advertise a job in Potomac, MD guess what, you might not get a diverse application pool

Have you ever thought that perhaps people look at their selection criteria and think, wow we are underrepresented in certain areas we need to do better through outreach, advertising, etc. Advertisers do it all the time. It's not racist to reach out to an underrepresented group, because you have designed a flawed outreach program.

It's odd to me that everybody is soooooooooo disturbed by African American's being courted by schools because the schools feel they are clearly missing out on an opportunity based on the way the system works. Why would AA be underrepresented? Do you think as a whole group of people there are no qualified AA's that could attend Harvard/UNC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

Also CalTech, Fall Enrollment 2022-23
https://www.registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

CalTech is actually one school doing it fairly right without test scores and it can do that because it has extremely small number of elite groups of students. 
Students have national level and international level awards and nobody would question their qualifications in general.

--- American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
--- Asian American 44%
--- Black or African American 7%
--- Hispanic/Latinx 22%
--- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2%
--- White 45%
--- International 9%
--- Race/ethnicity unknown 1%

If done relatively right, it would at least look like this I guess if you agree with CalTech way.

Actually, having a URM percentage at ~30% isn't bad for a niche elite tech college like Caltech. Those numbers will improve under test optional.

While not a public school, the black student population is in line or better than the state of California demographics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We get that is the argument, but what is the solution that is more fair? I see both ways but tests are at least somewhat objective. And I have been on BOTH sides of the aisle here, growing up poor, first gen, no test prep options vs. what I can now offer my kid.

"more fair"?

Basketball players are judge by how well they play basketball
Dancers are judged by how well they dance
Legacies are judged by how well they help fund the school and if they will provide connections to current students
Some kids are judged by SAT scores
Some kids are judged by the fact they started a movement after somebody shot up their school


If you want to be in the top 5% there are many ways to do that and GPA and SAT is only one way. Stop using that measure to say the other kids were not qualified.
If 20 kids are great basketball players the coach picks the 5 he wants, you don't have to understand why he picked those 5 kids. I don't care if you scored more baskets than the 5 he chose.

The core issue is that those schools that have been practicing holistic admissions still weren’t getting the “desired” diversity that they wanted when looking at all of those factors you’ve mentioned without directly looking at race. As a result, at least Harvard systemically and artificially reduced totally subjective personality scores on Asian applicants at the admissions office level. Let’s stop with the trope that Asian applicants were just robots studying for grades and test scores - the Harvard disclosures showed that Asian applicants also had leadership positions and extracurricular activities in line (or better) than all other races. The one factor that changed was the admissions office that never met these applicants putting in lower personality scores for Asians. THAT is patently unfair no matter how much one believes in a desired outcome.

We know it’s patently unfair because if you replace “Asian” with any other race (or religion or sex or sexual orientation), it would be recognized as racist right away. If Black students were getting the best grades, garnering the highest test scores, and had extracurricular activities and interview scores that were in line with every other race… but then the Harvard admissions office assigned a totally subjective personality score to Blacks that were lower than all other races because they were worried that Blacks would be too overrepresented at Harvard, that would rightfully be called out as racist immediately. If you applied Jewish people in that hypothetical, it would rightly be called antisemitic immediately (and that’s actually what happened at elite schools in the middle of the 20th century - it’s why holistic admissions exist in the first place). For some reason, people either don’t recognize that the fact this pattern is happening to Asians is racist or, arguably even worse, effectively know that it’s racist but think that the ends justify the means, it appalling to me.

By and large, I’m a liberal on cultural issues. I volunteer for the Democratic Party and will be voting for them on Tuesday up and down the ballot for many reasons. However, on this particular issue, too many liberals seem to have a complete blind spot. I firmly believe in DEI efforts as a goal, but they simply can’t use racist policies (against a minority group, no less) to achieve such goals as that defeats the idea behind DEI initiatives in the first place.

Our work decided to meet certain markers for diversity one being hire more Veterans and part-time workers, so we ran number and realized we did not have any Veterans (or maybe it was .1%). So we found out where Veterans look for jobs, we reached out to colleges that veterans attended, and we worked with the VA to get qualified Veterans.

What we realized is that our advertising process was inadequate to find veterans that were qualified. It was our process, not that there are NO qualified veterans.

If you only advertise a job in Potomac, MD guess what, you might not get a diverse application pool

Have you ever thought that perhaps people look at their selection criteria and think, wow we are underrepresented in certain areas we need to do better through outreach, advertising, etc. Advertisers do it all the time. It's not racist to reach out to an underrepresented group, because you have designed a flawed outreach program.

It's odd to me that everybody is soooooooooo disturbed by African American's being courted by schools because the schools feel they are clearly missing out on an opportunity based on the way the system works. Why would AA be underrepresented? Do you think as a whole group of people there are no qualified AA's that could attend Harvard/UNC?