Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

Huh? Are these students just going to not go to college and drop out of the potential work force because they haven't been admitted to a top college?
Lol.
No, they're going to go to other colleges, get educated and they'll do well and learn what they need to learn at the schools they attend. Then they will go on to succeed in the workforce.

You are posting as if their life and their future contribution to society will END if they don't attend a top 15 university.
This thinking is SO WARPED.

Anonymous wrote:Test optional exists solely to allow colleges to continue their practice of soft racial quotas in the face of potential restrictions on affirmative action. Its is unambiguously good for URMs, unambiguously bad for high stats white and Asian kids, and kind of a wash for low-stats kids who now have a small chance of getting lucky going TO but face a lot more uncertainty.

Agree!

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think test optional means that seats are going to academically unqualified students. I do think that holistic admissions, including test optional, has changed how academically qualified is measured. That in turn has reduced the ability of students and families to assess who is getting in and where, which has created the spiral of more and more applications and lower and lower acceptance rates at a subset of colleges.

There are also more high achieving students for a variety of reasons.

Importantly, it is not just URM and FGLI using test optional. It has changed the calculus of how applicants put their applications together and we are in the middle of an upheaval.

I also think “yield protection” is a very small piece of rejections. A waitlist position with merit aid might be the one place I believe this happens.

If you get "yield protected", that means you did not do your job and show interest. First: you don't get yield protected from a T30-40 school---you got rejected because they have more highly qualified students to choose from than they need. In the 40-80 rankings, if you get rejected and are at 75%+ for stats, then you did NOT show enough interest and that's on you. It's your job to make them think it's your top 1-2 schools, either thru essays, interviews, emailing AO, visiting, communicating with your desired dept major, etc. Ultimately the college wants to fill their freshman class so if their acceptance rate is 40-50%+ and you are at 75-90%+ and show no extra interest, they might rightly assume you wouldn't attend unless you get in nowhere else. It's your job to convince them otherwise. Not that hard to do.
My 1490/3.99UW (10 APs) kid got accepted to 9 schools (all targets and safeties), ultimately rejected at their ED after deferral (T10/high reach/not likely), WL at a T25 (low reach, acceptance rate was 7% ) and spend first year overseas at another reach (not as highly ranked but one with almost 100K applicants, so they are a reach for everyone). So ultimately, they only got "rejected" from 1 school and WL at another. That's because we worked hard to show demonstrated interest at all the schools.

These posts are proof that the most racist people in this country are the leftists.

And don’t give me BS that standardized tests don’t matter. Grade inflation is rampant in some schools. Comparing GPAs from different schools are worse than comparing oranges and apples.

Tell me that the numbers at football combines are irrelevant for NFL draft. Tell Black people that how fast you run, how much weight you lift is irrelevant to success in NFL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

Lol. Asians aren’t the best at education.

That’s an absolutely racist statement. The correct statement is: Not all Asians are the best at education. But no race is.

Sigh. Let me see if I can explain this to you like you are the moron you are.

The previous post insinuated Asians are best at education. One easily infers that from the bogus complaint about “discrimination.”

The problem with the complaint is the pp’s premise that test scores are the best measure of intelligence or what constitutes the “best and brightest.” They aren’t. They are one (easily manipulated) measure. Schools got hip to this.

But the mere suggestion that Asians are discriminated against because they do better on standardized tests insinuates superiority. They aren’t. And they most definitely are not discriminated against in an unfair or unlawful way.

(As an aside, “discrimination” is a misused word. Most discrimination is perfectly fine and appropriate. If you choose a side salad over fries at lunch, you discriminated against the fries. So what?)

It’s much more than test scores. Universities must sacrifice some races to do racial balancing. In the past they sacrificed Jews and now they sacrifice Asians.

Test optional exists solely to allow colleges to continue their practice of soft racial quotas in the face of potential restrictions on affirmative action. Its is unambiguously good for URMs, unambiguously bad for high stats white and Asian kids, and kind of a wash for low-stats kids who now have a small chance of getting lucky going TO but face a lot more uncertainty.

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

No---the difference between someone with a 1520 and a 1580 is minuscule. Both are really smart people---one may just not test as well. Does not mean they are not as smart or as valuable as an employee. In fact, plenty who have test anxiety do exceedingly well in life. Universities have recognized that the SAT/ACT is not the best indicator of excellence and adjusted accordingly.

Fun fact: my 26 ACT kid (who despite hours of tutoring could not change the score) graduated college, employed by a great company, 1 year out just got the highest raise possible for the "first year cohorts". Even those who my kid thought were "top contributors"and as good as my kid got lower raises. The company "ranks the same year cohorts" and distributes raises according to that ranking. That means my "so-so academic kiddo" based on ACT testing, is somehow excelling in the real world. We always knew that---give them the opportunity and they have the drive and desire to do well and everyone would want them on their team. They are working alongside kids who went to "better universities" and those kids likely have higher GPAs and higher SAT scores. Yet somehow it doesn't matter if you have the right drive and work ethic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think test optional means that seats are going to academically unqualified students. I do think that holistic admissions, including test optional, has changed how academically qualified is measured. That in turn has reduced the ability of students and families to assess who is getting in and where, which has created the spiral of more and more applications and lower and lower acceptance rates at a subset of colleges.

There are also more high achieving students for a variety of reasons.

Importantly, it is not just URM and FGLI using test optional. It has changed the calculus of how applicants put their applications together and we are in the middle of an upheaval.

I also think “yield protection” is a very small piece of rejections. A waitlist position with merit aid might be the one place I believe this happens.

This, op is an idiot.

No, I am not an idiot, pp. I am clearly much smarter than you.

Sorry your child got rejected, though. Sincerely. Just accept your kid will be fine where ever he ends up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

Lol. Asians aren’t the best at education.

That’s an absolutely racist statement. The correct statement is: Not all Asians are the best at education. But no race is.

Sigh. Let me see if I can explain this to you like you are the moron you are.

The previous post insinuated Asians are best at education. One easily infers that from the bogus complaint about “discrimination.”

The problem with the complaint is the pp’s premise that test scores are the best measure of intelligence or what constitutes the “best and brightest.” They aren’t. They are one (easily manipulated) measure. Schools got hip to this.

But the mere suggestion that Asians are discriminated against because they do better on standardized tests insinuates superiority. They aren’t. And they most definitely are not discriminated against in an unfair or unlawful way.

(As an aside, “discrimination” is a misused word. Most discrimination is perfectly fine and appropriate. If you choose a side salad over fries at lunch, you discriminated against the fries. So what?)

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

A student like you describe would only be rejected from a tiny handful of universities. You seem to view admission to those as a brass ring for a job well done. But I’m pretty confident that same student, if they didn’t feel put upon by not getting into their “dream school” would excel at Michigan State or Ohio State or University of Arizona. If they are truly as exceptional and gifted as you think they are, there is probably nothing that student couldn’t accomplish from these schools that they could from one on the highly rejective ones. What you really seem to want is access into the exclusive club that gets what 95% of applicants can’t have, even if you don’t know if it’s inherently better or not. All over the world countries have exception universities that are not so small as ours are. The scarcity of supply is false. These schools could easily add more seats. Alumni don’t want the schools to broaden access because they want the insularity.

Anonymous wrote:So every school announcing record high applications and record low admissions is just … lying?

They’re all lying when they announce that they’ve admitted 50% of their class test optional?

No. But point is these elite universities were still challenging to get admitted to in 2019---they were still highly rejective schools back then. Yes, it's more difficult now, but only incrementally.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think test optional means that seats are going to academically unqualified students. I do think that holistic admissions, including test optional, has changed how academically qualified is measured. That in turn has reduced the ability of students and families to assess who is getting in and where, which has created the spiral of more and more applications and lower and lower acceptance rates at a subset of colleges.

There are also more high achieving students for a variety of reasons.

Importantly, it is not just URM and FGLI using test optional. It has changed the calculus of how applicants put their applications together and we are in the middle of an upheaval.

I also think “yield protection” is a very small piece of rejections. A waitlist position with merit aid might be the one place I believe this happens.

This, op is an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

My seniors has all of that and is going to a top 50 school rather than top 20. And guess what! It’s no “tragedy”-she’ll do great there because she’s very hardworking and very smart. And the same will be true in grad school and the workplace. If you are conveying to your kids it’s a travesty they didn’t get in to a top 15 school you’re not doing them sny favors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

Lol. Asians aren’t the best at education.

That’s an absolutely racist statement. The correct statement is: Not all Asians are the best at education. But no race is.