Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

I am the customer. I am full-pay for multiple kids. I get to choose who gets my money. Others have the same choice. If a school wants that money, they better provide the product I want. Otherwise that money goes to their competitor.

Ok, how much are you paying per year. How much is a football team making from season ticket holders, their conference's TV deal, even donors who only care about football or basketball?

For the elite D3 schools with sports, it's the full-paying customers like me that ensure sports always be there. Those schools will need to ensure that their teams are filled, and athletes will have a preference in admissions.

Money is money. The schools can collect it from the nerds as easily as the jocks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

I am the customer. I am full-pay for multiple kids. I get to choose who gets my money. Others have the same choice. If a school wants that money, they better provide the product I want. Otherwise that money goes to their competitor.

Ok, how much are you paying per year. How much is a football team making from season ticket holders, their conference's TV deal, even donors who only care about football or basketball?

For the elite D3 schools with sports, it's the full-paying customers like me that ensure sports always be there. Those schools will need to ensure that their teams are filled, and athletes will have a preference in admissions.

For elite D3 schools, it's endowments which often have significant amounts designated for athletics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

I am the customer. I am full-pay for multiple kids. I get to choose who gets my money. Others have the same choice. If a school wants that money, they better provide the product I want. Otherwise that money goes to their competitor.

Ok, how much are you paying per year. How much is a football team making from season ticket holders, their conference's TV deal, even donors who only care about football or basketball?

For the elite D3 schools with sports, it's the full-paying customers like me that ensure sports always be there. Those schools will need to ensure that their teams are filled, and athletes will have a preference in admissions.

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.

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.

You're too far in the future about about 3 years. Try -50 years from conception to third trimester. THese kids are born stupid.

No way. My sister was adopted at birth from a low income parent. A lot of relatives in prison, died early from drugs, and no one went to college. My sister was salutatorian and has her PhD.

It's definitely how kids are being raised (or at least 90%).

Definitely? 90%? Did you just make that up out of thin air? My DH not adopted, his brother is adopted after being abandoned at birth. Same home, same parents raising them, wildly different outcomes. I think nature has a bit more to do with it than 10% since my anecdote is the exact opposite of yours.

I believe that poor parenting can have a much bigger (negative) impact than good parenting can have a positive impact. So I would believe that a child with tremendous natural potential could thrive in a supportive home but that does not mean that good parenting can completely overcome natural limitations.

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.

There is intense academic pressure and competition at these schools. Sorry but there is not much sitting around hob nobbing with nepo kids. Prepare to work.

I went to two and we worked but mostly hob nobbed. Met my husband, my best friend and a kid who introduced me to his dad who got me my first job. Networking is why you go to Ivys and no offense but Asian Americans will be left out. They do better at schools like MIT.

----
Asians now have a big enough cohort at top colleges that they can network among themselves as well. Silicon Valley and Wall Street now have enough Asians that our kids don't have to depend on racists like you.

Asians in Silicon Valley and Wall Street en masse? LOL! Delusional.

College sports aren't going anywhere - stop wasting your time on this nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

This is a great idea. Make colleges pay taxes on their property and their endowments.

No. They are non profits. Sorry that is the way it works. And you would not pay on an endowment in any event -- just on the taxable gains.

But the bigger picture ---- a college with just the best test takers (and most will go back to requiring tests) is not a place most would wantr to be at. Not enough diveristy of experience and thought.

+1

Too easy to prep for tests, but not life.

So these lazy pepole don't even bother to do the easy test prep.

Worst candidate for colleges

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

I am the customer. I am full-pay for multiple kids. I get to choose who gets my money. Others have the same choice. If a school wants that money, they better provide the product I want. Otherwise that money goes to their competitor.

Ok, how much are you paying per year. How much is a football team making from season ticket holders, their conference's TV deal, even donors who only care about football or basketball?

No school makes money on sports. So why do it? Who cares.

LOLOL. You have not heard of the TV broadcast revenue share?

When discussing sports in college, you can't combine Division 1 and Division III. Yes - the big conferences (you know the ones that participate in TV broadcast revenue share) are different regarding sports than a tiny division III school. Does Amherst's field hockey team bring in that much money for the school? How about their tennis team? How much is their football team pulling in? Dropping down some tiers - what about football at a school like Allegheny College or Wooster? How much are they bringing in? What about the golf teams at those schools? They bringing in anything?

You just can't compare the sports at say a University of North Carolina/University of Georgia/University of Maryland to sports at schools like Amherst/Wooster/etc. One is essentially minor leagues and the other is not.

I will say - one benefit to sports at some of these smaller, division 3 schools - it's a way to attract students that would otherwise not go to these schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Additionally, I think a by-product of the Supreme Court ruling will be the dismantlement of the historically black colleges and universities. They will no longer qualify for federal funding because that would be “racist” under the SC’s twisted logic. I give HCBUs maybe a decade before the vast majority are shut down due to disqualification for federal funds and programs.

The consequences of this decision will be Orwellian.

Nobody is barred from going to an HBCU

A few of them are predominantly white. For example, Bluefield State College in WV is 90% white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

This is a great idea. Make colleges pay taxes on their property and their endowments.

and profit from the sports

Dude -- there is no profit from sports. If football has a profit it pays for other sports. If you tax football then they get a credit for the other sports and they still would not pay.

Last year the SEC distributed $55 million to member schools. That's just conference money. 60,000+ seat stadiums are the norm for large schools (Ohio Stadium has a 104,000 seat capacity) and good programs can sell every ticket the can print. These schools are not losing money, it's the schools that like to pretend they are in that echelon that are losing money

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

This is a great idea. Make colleges pay taxes on their property and their endowments.

and profit from the sports

Dude -- there is no profit from sports. If football has a profit it pays for other sports. If you tax football then they get a credit for the other sports and they still would not pay.

NEWS | @SEC announces $777.8 million of total revenue, divided among its 14 universities for 2020-21 fiscal year (ending Aug 31, 2021). The distribution, excluding bowl revenue retained by schools for bowl expenses, averaged slightly over $54.6 million per school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

I am the customer. I am full-pay for multiple kids. I get to choose who gets my money. Others have the same choice. If a school wants that money, they better provide the product I want. Otherwise that money goes to their competitor.

Ok, how much are you paying per year. How much is a football team making from season ticket holders, their conference's TV deal, even donors who only care about football or basketball?

No school makes money on sports. So why do it? Who cares.

LOLOL. You have not heard of the TV broadcast revenue share?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

I am the customer. I am full-pay for multiple kids. I get to choose who gets my money. Others have the same choice. If a school wants that money, they better provide the product I want. Otherwise that money goes to their competitor.

Ok, how much are you paying per year. How much is a football team making from season ticket holders, their conference's TV deal, even donors who only care about football or basketball?

No school makes money on sports. So why do it? Who cares.

Every member of the big 10 and SEC makes an enormous amount of money on sports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

This is a great idea. Make colleges pay taxes on their property and their endowments.

and profit from the sports

Dude -- there is no profit from sports. If football has a profit it pays for other sports. If you tax football then they get a credit for the other sports and they still would not pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

This is a great idea. Make colleges pay taxes on their property and their endowments.

No. They are non profits. Sorry that is the way it works. And you would not pay on an endowment in any event -- just on the taxable gains.

But the bigger picture ---- a college with just the best test takers (and most will go back to requiring tests) is not a place most would wantr to be at. Not enough diveristy of experience and thought.

+1

Too easy to prep for tests, but not life.