Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not delusional - tech companies like Google, Microsoft have Indian CEOs. Both my husband and I went to Ivy leagues and have a broad network of successful classmates both white and non-white who are doing very well in tech and finance. We work on Wall Street. My kids are at an Ivy after attending private NYC schools and are doing great. They seem to be having no problems making friends with people from all races. Fortunately they are smart enough to get great internships without needing help from a classmates' dad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most fair way is to have comprehensive tests on each subjects, and give every kid a chance to show his/her knowledge (achievement in HS) and learning aptitude (potential). All the soft and subjective criteria result in unfairness.

But soft skills are really important in the workplace. I’d rather hire a slightly less academically inclined person who has a strong EQ. Ability to work with others, integrity, and grit matter a lot in life. I think that is why you see many high performers and CEOs that were not top of their class. Intelligence and academic achievement are not the whole picture.

Academic success is a strong indicator of integrity, grit and the ability to work with others. To claim otherwise is laughable. The top students make study groups, tutor, become teaching assistants, etc. Just because they aren't also playing lacrosse, dancing ballroom, and holding positions in meaningless clubs doesn't mean that they don't have soft skills.

As for CEOs, look at the academic credentials of the top tech company CEOs. The time where being in the same fraternity and having a firm handshake is long gone, something that women should be very happy about ironically.

Bezos - public magnet high school valedictorian, national merit scholar, took STEM programs at University of Florida as a high schooler, summa cum laude with 4.2 GPA at Princeton in electrical engineering and computer science

Zuckerberg - Phillips Exeter with honors, Harvard

Gates - Lakeside Prep, wrote first programs as a 13 year old in the late 1960's, Harvard

The fact is that social skills is very common and easy to develop if you grow up in a healthy environment, because humans are naturally social. Academic skills are not.

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,

Good. These are institutions of higher learning. Focus on that. Nothing else. Look at what most other countires do. Our system is so corrupted by $$

This.

The FTC should go after colleges for false marketing claims.

Uh, care to spell that out? -government lawyer laughing

NP. And, Apanother government lawyer (who was laughing, but then started thinking). Not tye FTC, but the DOJ is investigating allegations of anto trssust violations in college admissions.

1. Tne biggie is litigation alleging hugely selective schools coordinated need based aid. (Ie financial aid price fixing). This litigation is currently ongoing.

https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/antitrust-suit-could-cost-elite-universities-billions/#:~:text=Dubbed%20the%20%22568%20Cartel%22%20in,Technology%2C%20and%20Johns%20Hopkins%20University.

https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/federal-judge-allows-antitrust-lawsuit-against-17-elite-universities-to-move-forward

2. There has also been recent antitrust litigation alleging elite colleges are sharing names and info about ED students

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/04/09/justice-department-starts-investigation-early-decision-admissions

3. There have also been investigations on offering Ed admits enhanced aid or other benefits, like early registration or dorm preference and on a colleges poaching (actively pursuing surfeit after 5/1 or encouraging kids to transfer (even if the kid has not expressed interest). My own kid had both safeties (Wooster and St. Olaf) has an AO Call to see if anything would change my kid’s mind after 5/1. They said his acceptance would remain active until the beginning of Junior year and he could transfer at any point in the first two years for any reason. They followed up with and email or student or AP phone call every few months. That may be an antitrust violation.

4. Title IX lawsuits are also being filed.


So, the DOJ is running several investigations into college admissions. PP may have says the FTC but if your aren’t a federal lawyer, it’s an easy mistake to make

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could help students at more diverse high schools get in if that is used as a proxy for diversity.

It already is. Of course, it’s still usually the kids with the most money in the school zone getting the advantage. Being the most privileged kid at the most disadvantaged high school is a great way to get into a competitive college. What’s the saying about Alexandria? Yale or jail.

Definitely not true. If you’re applying from a “bad” high school you better be at the tippy top of the class (not just top 10% or 20%) and you’ll have to source all your extracurriculars on your own. You also will have to self-study to get 5s on AP tests for your AP classes (if offered). If the average SAT at your HS is an 900, the admissions officers will assume you scored similarly if you apply TO. And so on.

But you knew that, or else you’d put your kid in Dunbar or Anascotia tomorrow.

You also have to spend 4 years surrounded by morons who are prone to get violent because the consequences like suspensions/expulsions are meaningless to them, while self-defense will ruin your own chances at college due to zero-tolerance policies.

Being the 50th percentile kid at an academically strong school is always better than being the 95th percentile kid at an academically weak school. For quality of life, education, etc.

SO, if AA goes away, we also get rid of all the other tricks people use to get their kids into college?

I'll take that deal.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trump wholeheartedly supported HBCUs.

Trump never wholehearted supported anything but Trump and KFC.

Don't forget McDonald's. Many people are saying he was a big supporter of the Big Mac.

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.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

Why would conservatives hate universities leaning more female? Conservatives believe college is unnecessary for most people (which is true) and that it focuses on the wrong things (also true), not that there aren't enough men in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was responding to the poster who said that no school makes money on sports. Obviously many do. Obviously I was not talking about fencing at Amherst.

Wait, fencing at Amherst doesn't make money? No wonder I have trouble scalping my tickets.

Doubtful. Rich white people will still have their ways

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

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

Wow, that's a narrow, overgeneralized understanding of how life works.

Anonymous wrote:And even with the end of those preference programs, it may not be enough to to stave off a rapid decline in URM enrollment. Zip codes of residence will become much more important for building diverse student bodies that are not uniformly UMC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/15/us/affirmative-action-admissions-scotus.html

If the NYT says something the truth is likely to be the precise opposite.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was responding to the poster who said that no school makes money on sports. Obviously many do. Obviously I was not talking about fencing at Amherst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. So? Shouldn't a state college reflect the demographics of the state? After all, state colleges receive funding from the states and their taxpayers. West Virginia is 92.52% white.

I don’t know about that. UVA is almost 20% Asian, but Virginia is under 10% Asian. And UVA is under 10% Black, while the state is 20% Black. Are you saying UVA should enroll more Black students and fewer Asians? To reflect the demographics of the state?

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?

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.

Feel free to start a nerd school and let us know how it goes. If anyone agreed with you, the market would drive these schools to be "nerd schools". Seems like one Olin is enough to satisfy the need.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. So? Shouldn't a state college reflect the demographics of the state? After all, state colleges receive funding from the states and their taxpayers. West Virginia is 92.52% white.