Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Exactly. All this outrage among certain groups is perplexing. The point of the ivies isn't grinder grades-win-all, but the mixing with the actual, not just aspiring, elite. And all the advantages that leads to for the kids who attend.

You're describing a cleptocracy.

.

I think you need to look up the definition of cleptocracy.

and the spelling.

Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:(I reference back to some NYT or similar lever write-up on a West Coast private school college placement. They interviewed the mom of an African American boy who got into like 5 Ivies after taking a good number of APs, doing well, scoring mid 1500s on the SAT, and playing 🎷 in the school band (and possibly in state band).

"If not him, then whom?", the mom said, full of pride.

I could practically hear the groans of his classmate's parents.

And really, the question of why a boy attending a well regarded private school in one of the world's most expensive cities needs affirmative action remains unanswered.

What are you trying to say here?

(I reference back to some NYT or similar lever write-up on a West Coast private school college placement. They interviewed the mom of an African American boy who got into like 5 Ivies after taking a good number of APs, doing well, scoring mid 1500s on the SAT, and playing 🎷 in the school band (and possibly in state band).

"If not him, then whom?", the mom said, full of pride.

I could practically hear the groans of his classmate's parents.

And really, the question of why a boy attending a well regarded private school in one of the world's most expensive cities needs affirmative action remains unanswered.

I am concerned about social instability if we dispose of affirmative action and do not immediately put another social elevator in its place.

I would rather increase enrollment competitive universities than take away the real or perceived social elevator spots. As much as upper middle class would like to fill more of their children into the hallowed halls of Harvard, we need to collectively think back to BLM riots and leave well enough alone.

It goes without saying that any thinking person recognizes that the affirmative action, as practiced today in college admissions, if a farce and a mockery of a true social elevator. However, if you suddenly remove that boost from your minority students, none of them will raise to the challenge of competing with white and Asian students... Not because minority students are incapable, but because they never had to compete at that level. They still live in the world where good grades are enough for an Ivy.

It would be better for the country long-term if we replaced race-based affirmative action with some other metric that has a more direct correlation with SEC.. but short-term, I shudder to think what will happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

Curious which countries you are referring that have meritocratic methods?

China, Japan, and South Korea. And those kids literally kill themselves if they don’t gain admission. Suicide and depression rates among teens are off the chart in those countries. It’s collective trauma.

Cheating on tests in these countries is rampant, and politically-connected and wealthy families can very easily buy their way into the top universities. I figured these would be examples of the countries offered...add India as another country where the admissions process is a mess.

People have already mentioned the UK and European countries.

So, you don't think the good old boys from Eton don't have essentially guaranteed admission at Cambridge or Oxford? I don't know much about the Scandanavian or German college systems...France has a pipeline of the wealthy private school kids to the Sorbonne.

People, stop thinking there are magical, meritocratic places. Maybe there are...but keep trying.

The wealthy and connected will get in to every university they desire. We aren’t talking about frankly these people. We the unwashed masses are discussing admission policies that apply to us, aa being one of them. But yes in a fair world the rich won’t be advantaged, like in every aspect of life. Duh.

NP: the masses aren’t going to Oxford or Cambridge. The UK has limited socioeconomic mobility.

Oxbridge have way higher percentages of Asians (mostly South Asians) than top schools here.

False. For 2O21 Oxford had only 11.2 percent “Asians” which they determine to include Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, Indians, Pakistani and Bangladesh students. There is no separate break out for South Asians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

They will find a team. It will be amateurs, which is appropriate. Professional athletes should go to the professional leagues.

Disagree. A small school like Amherst is not going to be able to field a softball team (even amateur) without giving an athletic preference. These schools are already not really dropping their admit criteria for these teams — but if they have 100 equally qualified kids for each spot, they will continue to give a little edge to the kids that will allow them to field their basic sports teams. Maybe they’d end up with a tennis team just by chance but not a softball team and not a dive team etc.

But even the div 1 teams—-I don’t see why a s ct ruling in affirmative action would change what they do with athletes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Nope. I taught first grade. Kids arrive at elementary school with profound differences. The answer is birth to age five, and more probably birth to age three.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile ACB’s daughter goes to Notre Dame as a legacy after graduating from a “People of Praise” secondary school.

ACB? wth

Amy Comey Barrett, Supreme Court Justice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

To be contrary. Men have made a mess of things so I don’t mind women having more power.

The dating market place is global, and maybe we need to be having less children to save the earth.

Incels will always be there and proliferate. Better to give women power to squash these maggots.

A lot of boys with special needs are at high risk for becoming incels. It’s one of my deepest fears for my special needs son. I think there’s a big difference between guys who aren’t marriage material though no fault of their own and MAGAs. Do you disagree?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

Curious which countries you are referring that have meritocratic methods?

China, Japan, and South Korea. And those kids literally kill themselves if they don’t gain admission. Suicide and depression rates among teens are off the chart in those countries. It’s collective trauma.

Cheating on tests in these countries is rampant, and politically-connected and wealthy families can very easily buy their way into the top universities. I figured these would be examples of the countries offered...add India as another country where the admissions process is a mess.

People have already mentioned the UK and European countries.

So, you don't think the good old boys from Eton don't have essentially guaranteed admission at Cambridge or Oxford? I don't know much about the Scandanavian or German college systems...France has a pipeline of the wealthy private school kids to the Sorbonne.

People, stop thinking there are magical, meritocratic places. Maybe there are...but keep trying.

The wealthy and connected will get in to every university they desire. We aren’t talking about frankly these people. We the unwashed masses are discussing admission policies that apply to us, aa being one of them. But yes in a fair world the rich won’t be advantaged, like in every aspect of life. Duh.

NP: the masses aren’t going to Oxford or Cambridge. The UK has limited socioeconomic mobility.

Oxbridge have way higher percentages of Asians (mostly South Asians) than top schools here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

💯

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile ACB’s daughter goes to Notre Dame as a legacy after graduating from a “People of Praise” secondary school.

ACB? wth

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile ACB’s daughter goes to Notre Dame as a legacy after graduating from a “People of Praise” secondary school.

Whatever your position on ACB's religious beliefs and the value of prioritizing the children of faculty and alumni, I don't see how graduating from any particular HS should disqualify anyone from admission to highly selective colleges. I have no idea what her daughter's academic abilities are and neither do you unless you are on the admissions committee at ND or have taught at her HS.

Many students in this country attend religious and public schools that I would never want my child attending but that doesn't mean that everyone who graduates from them is incapable of performing well at schools with competitive admissions.

I’ve taught at a religious school that beat the pants off the local public schools. I’m not saying that every school is like this, but it absolutely happens.