They actually wrote this.

Such a recruiting strategy would mean not just tweaking statistical preferences, but also building relationships with high school counselors, traveling to college fairs, and perhaps developing dual-enrollment courses that introduce high school students to college work.

You guys, has anyone told the colleges they can do this stuff? What great ideas!

Anonymous wrote:One wonders why colleges didn’t do some of this stuff already, which would have still given them racial diversity AND vastly better economic diversity.

Because it was never about real diversity. It was about optics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Or maybe parents will finally understand that schools outside the top 20 still offer a good education and stress around getting into the "right" school will decrease.

Unrealistic, I know.

Or maybe these so called top schools will lose their appeal as they become more of a charity and less of a place for the best and brightest. State flagships will reap the benefit and eclipse these formerly highly regarded schools.

What this article suggests --recruiting to make sure that the smartest kids in every school apply, not just rich and white schools, and looking for students who do better than expected -- is making it a place for the best and brightest. Unless you think that rich students with middling SAT scores are somehow the best and brightest.

Scenario 4 is expanding the applicant pool.

Eukreka! The colleges could, like, email and mail lots of kids and let them know about the things they offer.

Call me really crazy, this is really out there, but what if they hired some representatives to visit the high schools to tell the kids about the school? They could even set up a lot of tables so lots of colleges could do it at once. You could call it, I don’t know, a fair?

Schools already use socioeconomic info and school resource info in admissions. Why is NYT acting like this is some newfangled idea?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Or maybe parents will finally understand that schools outside the top 20 still offer a good education and stress around getting into the "right" school will decrease.

Unrealistic, I know.

Or maybe these so called top schools will lose their appeal as they become more of a charity and less of a place for the best and brightest. State flagships will reap the benefit and eclipse these formerly highly regarded schools.

It's possible (and I think likely) for the balance to shift. But state flagships will never entirely eclipse ivies, because ivies draw from a national catchment, while flagships by definition serve their local state populations.

The real question is, who benefits as ivy populations get increasingly Asian post affirmative action? Who gets the white kids? Southern flagships seen like a good bet. Is it time to buy stock in LACs again?

White kids in the south, west, midwest, and pretty much everywhere not the northeast aren't as obsessed or interested in the ivies as you seem to think.

Do you just keep this comment ready to ctrl-c every time someone mentions the ivies? Everybody knows this already. The question is about the present ivy population. Do they just sit tight as Asians become more predominant on campus now that AA is over, or do they move elsewhere. I think many of them move elsewhere, including to your beloved flagships.

You wish it was just one person who said the same thing, as if it wasn't a popular sentiment. Everyone isn't ivy or bust and that will ony become more common in the next several years. Can you not read the writing on the wall?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

The comments on migrant and affirmative action articles in NYT always more negative than positive commenters. Considering the average subscriber is more liberal than the average American, I normally take it as a sort of litmus test politicians, institutions, etc. have gone too far to the left on some topics. WSJ commenters are much more conservative on almost every issue.

Yes, I think the NYT comment page is a good insight into what positions are popular and what positions are political losers.

The NYT comments are extremely pro-reproductive rights and pro-public education, so the idea that they are hidden conservatives is way off. The issue is that a lot of progressive leftist positions have become extremely unpopular across the board. DEI is one of them. Trans rights (particularly where that means girls and women suffer) is another.

Agree w both these comments. The NYT subscribers are generally Biden-voting, college graduate demo. Not young/not old. When you’ve lost them, time to rethink the policy.

This gives a select handful of non white students and white poor students a leg up in some selective schools admissions. And that is no different to what it has been.

It doesn’t change the fact that success is predicated on having an education and being able to pass standard tests.

Families who did this, do this right now and will do this will have kids who succeed, do well, get jobs, build wealth. Trade jobs - they require further education. They all have licensure exams and apprenticeships. The military has job training programs and they have an education component.

Fiddling with DEI type stats doesn’t make more than a handful of people better off. It doesn’t really level a playing field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Or maybe parents will finally understand that schools outside the top 20 still offer a good education and stress around getting into the "right" school will decrease.

Unrealistic, I know.

Or maybe these so called top schools will lose their appeal as they become more of a charity and less of a place for the best and brightest. State flagships will reap the benefit and eclipse these formerly highly regarded schools.

It's possible (and I think likely) for the balance to shift. But state flagships will never entirely eclipse ivies, because ivies draw from a national catchment, while flagships by definition serve their local state populations.

The real question is, who benefits as ivy populations get increasingly Asian post affirmative action? Who gets the white kids? Southern flagships seen like a good bet. Is it time to buy stock in LACs again?

White kids in the south, west, midwest, and pretty much everywhere not the northeast aren't as obsessed or interested in the ivies as you seem to think.

Do you just keep this comment ready to ctrl-c every time someone mentions the ivies? Everybody knows this already. The question is about the present ivy population. Do they just sit tight as Asians become more predominant on campus now that AA is over, or do they move elsewhere. I think many of them move elsewhere, including to your beloved flagships.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Or maybe parents will finally understand that schools outside the top 20 still offer a good education and stress around getting into the "right" school will decrease.

Unrealistic, I know.

Or maybe these so called top schools will lose their appeal as they become more of a charity and less of a place for the best and brightest. State flagships will reap the benefit and eclipse these formerly highly regarded schools.

It's possible (and I think likely) for the balance to shift. But state flagships will never entirely eclipse ivies, because ivies draw from a national catchment, while flagships by definition serve their local state populations.

The real question is, who benefits as ivy populations get increasingly Asian post affirmative action? Who gets the white kids? Southern flagships seen like a good bet. Is it time to buy stock in LACs again?

White kids in the south, west, midwest, and pretty much everywhere not the northeast aren't as obsessed or interested in the ivies as you seem to think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Or maybe parents will finally understand that schools outside the top 20 still offer a good education and stress around getting into the "right" school will decrease.

Unrealistic, I know.

Or maybe these so called top schools will lose their appeal as they become more of a charity and less of a place for the best and brightest. State flagships will reap the benefit and eclipse these formerly highly regarded schools.

It's possible (and I think likely) for the balance to shift. But state flagships will never entirely eclipse ivies, because ivies draw from a national catchment, while flagships by definition serve their local state populations.

The real question is, who benefits as ivy populations get increasingly Asian post affirmative action? Who gets the white kids? Southern flagships seen like a good bet. Is it time to buy stock in LACs again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Or maybe parents will finally understand that schools outside the top 20 still offer a good education and stress around getting into the "right" school will decrease.

Unrealistic, I know.

Or maybe these so called top schools will lose their appeal as they become more of a charity and less of a place for the best and brightest. State flagships will reap the benefit and eclipse these formerly highly regarded schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

The comments on migrant and affirmative action articles in NYT always more negative than positive commenters. Considering the average subscriber is more liberal than the average American, I normally take it as a sort of litmus test politicians, institutions, etc. have gone too far to the left on some topics. WSJ commenters are much more conservative on almost every issue.

Yes, I think the NYT comment page is a good insight into what positions are popular and what positions are political losers.

The NYT comments are extremely pro-reproductive rights and pro-public education, so the idea that they are hidden conservatives is way off. The issue is that a lot of progressive leftist positions have become extremely unpopular across the board. DEI is one of them. Trans rights (particularly where that means girls and women suffer) is another.

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

The comments on migrant and affirmative action articles in NYT always more negative than positive commenters. Considering the average subscriber is more liberal than the average American, I normally take it as a sort of litmus test politicians, institutions, etc. have gone too far to the left on some topics. WSJ commenters are much more conservative on almost every issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

A lot of white males.

53/47 male to female. That’s based on subscription name. Majority of families have bills under father’s name. Not a super majority at all, but not surprised it’s more female than male.