Anonymous wrote:It’s long past time for a needed shake of the education industrial complex. Glad to see it.

+1

It’s long past time for a needed shake of the education industrial complex. Glad to see it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any of these colleges have an endowment of more than $2 million/undergraduate.
I did some rough calculations for Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, UVA and they're all under. maybe MIT?

Penn’s endowment is around $25BN and they have 10,000 undergrads. Thats like $2.5MM/student.

It's 22 million and 11,200 undergrads so 1.9 million

No…it’s now up to $24.8BN as of June 2025 (probably higher now with market gains). You are using 2024 figures. 10,497 undergraduates. $2.362MM per student.

Penn has lots of grad students and much of the endowment (e.g. medicine and law) will not be for undergraduate programs.

Anonymous wrote:Main points:

The memo demands that schools ban the use of race or sex in hiring and admissions;
freeze tuition for five years;
cap international undergrad enrollment at 15%;
require that applicants take the SAT or a similar test;
quell grade inflation.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/trump-universities-compact-federal-funds-agreement-df158493?mod=hp_lead_pos1

All the more reason to look harder at your child applying to schools in the UK and Canada.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Letters on Wednesday were sent to the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia.
Ms. Mailman, who has orchestrated much of the administration’s higher education strategy, said the compact could ultimately be extended to all colleges and universities.”

Hoping they stand strong and don’t give in. Those who do, will regret it.
Thank goodness my kids aren’t looking at any of these for higher ed.

Same here but when does it spread to other schools? I fear this is just the beginning.

It is.
It’s why they’ve renamed women’s studies departments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the WH realize if they don’t take into account gender, these schools will be heavily female???

+1

No more DEI for boys.

It's funny that this propaganda keeps getting repeated. After a generation of DEI programs and admissions boosts to help women out from elementary school, where are all these elite female doctors, lawyers, engineers, economists, physicists, and mathematicians? Basically anyone can get a social science degree--doubly so since ChatGPT exists.

Lawyers really?
50% of incoming 1st year associate classes at Kirkland and Latham are women. It’s retention idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Trump worried about using gender in admissions? Doesn’t he realize that the number of boys will go way down if colleges aren’t allowed to balance the class for gender?

Hilarious. If this is followed, elite math, physics, and engineering programs will be 90% male.

Yes but there’s other majors- also not really. The top 10% of elite college stem majors would be men but there’s plenty of women at the top in these fields. Even if there weren’t, you’re neglecting biology, chemistry, neuroscience,…there are a lot less qualified men than women. Our admissions process isn’t just SAT scores- you have to actually be able to engage with community and write well.

This is just more lower IQ thinking. Those lesser sciences could easily be (and commonly are) done by men. CEOs and politicians tend to be mostly men and they seem to speak just fine. Most doctors acclaimed for their skill or innovation are men. And which brilliant mathematicians and scientists "have to actually be able to engage with community and write well?" Yours is absurd thinking.

You think biology and chemistry are lesser sciences?

I’m sorry. Physics is a wonderful subject and deeply intricate but current research involves smashing particles together, looking outside of our planet and essentially being a software engineer for space, being a trainee engineer (looking at you optics), and….being unemployable (theoretical).

Biologist and chemists are studying diseases that can kill you. I’ll take the cancer researcher as more important than some guy trying to find the next fundamental particle any day. Maybe the latter’s more intelligent, but it’s almost entirely useless for most of mankind- they frankly might be more useful doing something else entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Trump worried about using gender in admissions? Doesn’t he realize that the number of boys will go way down if colleges aren’t allowed to balance the class for gender?

Hilarious. If this is followed, elite math, physics, and engineering programs will be 90% male.

Why? I thought perfect math scores were like 2:1 male, not 9:1.

Because you’re talking to an unintelligent person, who holds on to sexist ideas about women’s abilities to explain their own mediocrity. Notice how they ignored 99% of majors and can’t generalize a statement that there’d be more men than women, because they know they’d be wrong. So they fixate on what men excel at and try to position that as some domineering point of significance when it’s hardly a footnote.

The SAT is not that difficult. They dumbed it down so girls could do better on it.
Most math, physics, and engineering people can do at least as good as others in the social sciences. English, history, and sociology are not that hard. And psychology and sociology are pseudoscience.

How about AMC10/12 and USAMO/USJAMO/IMO or the following achievements?
- AIME winners
- Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chem, and Econ
- Fields Medal, Abel Prize in math
- Stokes Medal, Dirac Medal, NMTI
- Tech founders
- Inventors
- etc

Hell, they even have to have separate grandmaster categories in Chess

You have really failed at considering the average student at an elite institution. It’s like you only can talk about the top 0.01%. Most students would still be women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the WH realize if they don’t take into account gender, these schools will be heavily female???

+1

No more DEI for boys.

It's funny that this propaganda keeps getting repeated. After a generation of DEI programs and admissions boosts to help women out from elementary school, where are all these elite female doctors, lawyers, engineers, economists, physicists, and mathematicians? Basically anyone can get a social science degree--doubly so since ChatGPT exists.

Anyone can get any undergrad degree if they’re at the right level of institution
-physics grad. You aren’t special for doing a hard thing for 4 years.

States are giving trump the smack down now, starting with CA. Thank goodness! No worries. Stand up to tyranny!

Anonymous wrote:“Letters on Wednesday were sent to the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia.
Ms. Mailman, who has orchestrated much of the administration’s higher education strategy, said the compact could ultimately be extended to all colleges and universities.”

Hoping they stand strong and don’t give in. Those who do, will regret it.
Thank goodness my kids aren’t looking at any of these for higher ed.

Same here but when does it spread to other schools? I fear this is just the beginning.

Anonymous wrote:Guess we know what colleges not to apply to.

Only avoid them IF they capitulate and give in by signing. If they hold out and fight Trump's attack, we should absolutely support them.

I will increase donations to my alma mater (Penn) if they don't sign this nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:Is test requirement being reinstated this year at the affected colleges? Could they wait until next year to implement it?

It already has been implemented at the Ivies on the list. Last year they were test required.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the kind of micromanaging that makes people incessantly complain about their bosses. Why can't he focus on the big picture?

The president of the United States probably couldn't get over a 30% percentile SAT or ACT score, so HTH is he to tell colleges to rescind test-option.

Also, UO has no tuition increases for 5 years -- Go Ducks!

He should be required to take a Constitution test (like juniors in my state are required to do), score a 1550+ on SAT and follow the fitness regime outlined by the Dept of War yesterday!

Amen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the WH realize if they don’t take into account gender, these schools will be heavily female???

+1

No more DEI for boys.

It's funny that this propaganda keeps getting repeated. After a generation of DEI programs and admissions boosts to help women out from elementary school, where are all these elite female doctors, lawyers, engineers, economists, physicists, and mathematicians? Basically anyone can get a social science degree--doubly so since ChatGPT exists.