Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On college confidential there was a black kid in Texas endlessly bragging about getting into every top 20 college (only rejected from Stanford) a few months back.

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/2021582-chance-me-for-ivy.html

He only had a 32 on the ACT and SAT II scores super mediocre. No Asian or white kid with his stats would get into even 1 top 20 college. On top of that he's going for 100% free to Harvard.

32 is 98%tile. What's your issue??

Exactly, so literally 200,000 kids scored higher than him on the ACT/SAT.

Around 2 million students take the test each year (up in recent years)

2% of 2 million is 40,000, not 200,000, right?

Also that's the number that scored equal or better.

a 33 is a 99th % -- so only 20,000 kids scored better, not 200,000.

This is the part where you say "Typo" (except explain the comma).

By the way, the kid also had a 33 superscore.

36 2,760
35 12,386
34 20,499
33 26,920
32 33,115

= 95,680 ACT scores better than or equal to his 32

+ over 100,000 converted SAT scores equivalent or better than a 32 ACT

= over 200,000 students each year

Wrong. Many take both and many take the test several times / year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree with your statement. "solely on academic excellence" by definition is equal to "fair" and "non-discriminatory" as long as Harvard doesn't deny admission offer to a higher scoring candidate while offering admission to a lower scoring candidate, as long as what academic excellence is understood by all.

Again, you are basing it all on test scores. Test scores do not equal academic excellence nor do they guarantee alone what a student will contribute to the campus and its classrooms. They are, at best, a confirming data point. Also, what do you do about non-scoring academic excellence, such as in the arts? A gifted musician gets no chance if he can't get above a 28 on the science section?

Anonymous wrote:If someone or a group of students couldn't achieve the needed academic excellence because of circumstances not created by Harvard (E.g. societal oppression for which Harvard can't do anything about) it is fair and non-discriminatory for Harvard to follow academic excellence as the sole criterion.

I do not understand this sentence so cannot reply to it.

I used the word "score" in a haste. But I also said "as long as what academic excellence is understood by all". I don't presume that standardized score alone is academic excellence. I agree, it is an indicator of one in high school core subject areas. Also, academic excellence is field specific (what area of pursuit we are talking about) and as such standardized score may not mean much in some areas of pursuit (E.g. poetry, play acting, drawing, sculpting, singing, etc.). But every pursuit has its own identification of what excellence means in its realm and people who pursue that path know when they see excellence (as the saying goes, I know it when I see it). Harvard should apply appropriate excellence measure as it offers admission to applicants among its varied academic departments.

As for the last part of my post, what I am saying is that Harvard shouldn't reduce its measure of excellence and offer admission to anyone just because they couldn't be competitive enough due to circumstances not in control of Harvard (E.g. poor quality schools). However, I firmly believe that first gen and economically poor students should be given special consideration for admission to Harvard. While the admission bar is lower for such students and hence they aren't as prepared as their other classmates, with encouragement and social and academic support from faculty and fellow students they will do well in their studies and their careers afterward.

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree with your statement. "solely on academic excellence" by definition is equal to "fair" and "non-discriminatory" as long as Harvard doesn't deny admission offer to a higher scoring candidate while offering admission to a lower scoring candidate, as long as what academic excellence is understood by all.

Again, you are basing it all on test scores. Test scores do not equal academic excellence nor do they guarantee alone what a student will contribute to the campus and its classrooms. They are, at best, a confirming data point. Also, what do you do about non-scoring academic excellence, such as in the arts? A gifted musician gets no chance if he can't get above a 28 on the science section?

Anonymous wrote:If someone or a group of students couldn't achieve the needed academic excellence because of circumstances not created by Harvard (E.g. societal oppression for which Harvard can't do anything about) it is fair and non-discriminatory for Harvard to follow academic excellence as the sole criterion.

I do not understand this sentence so cannot reply to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Non-academic skills should not be valued if Harvard wants to have less than 10% admit rate (this percent I picked is as an example to be considered a highly selective university, the percent could be different as a general practice). You asked me why Harvard should follow my proposal. It should, not because I want, but because it is fair to all applicants. Also, it is being non-discriminatory.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa -- how is "solely on academic excellence" by definition equal to "fair" and "non-discriminatory"?

Those terms have no correlation. You could admit solely on academic excellence and also be unfair and discriminate or you can admit on other criteria and be fair and not discriminate.

Anonymous wrote:I think churches, charities, and private clubs, to be non-exempt and save tax dollars and for donors to claim tax exemptions for their donations, need to be non-discriminatory by law.

If you were consistent in your logic you would think they should be tax exempt as long as they operate on criteria you approve of. And all religions "discriminate" against those who don't follow their tenets so no luck there.

I disagree with your statement. "solely on academic excellence" by definition is equal to "fair" and "non-discriminatory" as long as Harvard doesn't deny admission offer to a higher scoring candidate while offering admission to a lower scoring candidate, as long as what academic excellence is understood by all. If someone or a group of students couldn't achieve the needed academic excellence because of circumstances not created by Harvard (E.g. societal oppression for which Harvard can't do anything about) it is fair and non-discriminatory for Harvard to follow academic excellence as the sole criterion. Regarding churches, etc. as to why they are non-exempt, I admit I should educate my self more. I do know it is political (after all congress passes the laws).

Anonymous wrote:

Non-academic skills should not be valued if Harvard wants to have less than 10% admit rate (this percent I picked is as an example to be considered a highly selective university, the percent could be different as a general practice). You asked me why Harvard should follow my proposal. It should, not because I want, but because it is fair to all applicants. Also, it is being non-discriminatory.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa -- how is "solely on academic excellence" by definition equal to "fair" and "non-discriminatory"?

Those terms have no correlation. You could admit solely on academic excellence and also be unfair and discriminate or you can admit on other criteria and be fair and not discriminate.

Anonymous wrote:I think churches, charities, and private clubs, to be non-exempt and save tax dollars and for donors to claim tax exemptions for their donations, need to be non-discriminatory by law.

If you were consistent in your logic you would think they should be tax exempt as long as they operate on criteria you approve of. And all religions "discriminate" against those who don't follow their tenets so no luck there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Of course, I am suggesting "solely" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria. That doesn't mean the successful students who get admission offers are one dimensional.

Aaaannnnd... no one said the latter.

So, should non-academic skills be valued in admission or not?

Anonymous wrote:It has tax exempt status and hence it doesn't pay taxes on its revenue, be it tuition and other fee from students or profits from its endowment fund investments. We will see in the next few years what the courts (all the way to SCOTUS) will determine. Just because Harvard is a private university it can't do willy nilly anything it pleases.

Do you apply the same rules to all non-profits? Churches, charities, and private clubs?

Harvard is not doing "willy nilly anything it pleases". It is following a well-defined criteria for admissions based on its institutional objectives. And a third time, you haven't answered the question: Why should it do what you want and not what it thinks is best?

Non-academic skills should not be valued if Harvard wants to have less than 10% admit rate (this percent I picked is as an example to be considered a highly selective university, the percent could be different as a general practice). You asked me why Harvard should follow my proposal. It should, not because I want, but because it is fair to all applicants. Also, it is being non-discriminatory. To be fair to all applicants while claiming all the glory of being highly selective university it should not have preference categories, except of course for first gen and economically poor families. I think churches, charities, and private clubs, to be non-exempt and save tax dollars and for donors to claim tax exemptions for their donations, need to be non-discriminatory by law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On college confidential there was a black kid in Texas endlessly bragging about getting into every top 20 college (only rejected from Stanford) a few months back.

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/2021582-chance-me-for-ivy.html

He only had a 32 on the ACT and SAT II scores super mediocre. No Asian or white kid with his stats would get into even 1 top 20 college. On top of that he's going for 100% free to Harvard.

32 is 98%tile. What's your issue??

Exactly, so literally 200,000 kids scored higher than him on the ACT/SAT.

Around 2 million students take the test each year (up in recent years)

2% of 2 million is 40,000, not 200,000, right?

Also that's the number that scored equal or better.

a 33 is a 99th % -- so only 20,000 kids scored better, not 200,000.

This is the part where you say "Typo" (except explain the comma).

By the way, the kid also had a 33 superscore.

36 2,760
35 12,386
34 20,499
33 26,920
32 33,115

= 95,680 ACT scores better than or equal to his 32

+ over 100,000 converted SAT scores equivalent or better than a 32 ACT

= over 200,000 students each year

With the law of diminishing return when it comes to IQ the 32's and 33's may make better students... btw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On college confidential there was a black kid in Texas endlessly bragging about getting into every top 20 college (only rejected from Stanford) a few months back.

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/2021582-chance-me-for-ivy.html

He only had a 32 on the ACT and SAT II scores super mediocre. No Asian or white kid with his stats would get into even 1 top 20 college. On top of that he's going for 100% free to Harvard.

32 is 98%tile. What's your issue??

Exactly, so literally 200,000 kids scored higher than him on the ACT/SAT.

Around 2 million students take the test each year (up in recent years)

2% of 2 million is 40,000, not 200,000, right?

Also that's the number that scored equal or better.

a 33 is a 99th % -- so only 20,000 kids scored better, not 200,000.

This is the part where you say "Typo" (except explain the comma).

By the way, the kid also had a 33 superscore.

36 2,760
35 12,386
34 20,499
33 26,920
32 33,115

= 95,680 ACT scores better than or equal to his 32

+ over 100,000 converted SAT scores equivalent or better than a 32 ACT

= over 200,000 students each year

Lol first you didn’t say equal you said better.

Second you said nothing about SAT and we are not going to get in a diversion about concordance.

So, fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Of course, I am suggesting "solely" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria. That doesn't mean the successful students who get admission offers are one dimensional.

Aaaannnnd... no one said the latter.

So, should non-academic skills be valued in admission or not?

Anonymous wrote:It has tax exempt status and hence it doesn't pay taxes on its revenue, be it tuition and other fee from students or profits from its endowment fund investments. We will see in the next few years what the courts (all the way to SCOTUS) will determine. Just because Harvard is a private university it can't do willy nilly anything it pleases.

Do you apply the same rules to all non-profits? Churches, charities, and private clubs?

Harvard is not doing "willy nilly anything it pleases". It is following a well-defined criteria for admissions based on its institutional objectives. And a third time, you haven't answered the question: Why should it do what you want and not what it thinks is best?

That are perfectly legal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On college confidential there was a black kid in Texas endlessly bragging about getting into every top 20 college (only rejected from Stanford) a few months back.

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/2021582-chance-me-for-ivy.html

He only had a 32 on the ACT and SAT II scores super mediocre. No Asian or white kid with his stats would get into even 1 top 20 college. On top of that he's going for 100% free to Harvard.

32 is 98%tile. What's your issue??

Exactly, so literally 200,000 kids scored higher than him on the ACT/SAT.

Around 2 million students take the test each year (up in recent years)

2% of 2 million is 40,000, not 200,000, right?

Also that's the number that scored equal or better.

a 33 is a 99th % -- so only 20,000 kids scored better, not 200,000.

This is the part where you say "Typo" (except explain the comma).

By the way, the kid also had a 33 superscore.

36 2,760
35 12,386
34 20,499
33 26,920
32 33,115

= 95,680 ACT scores better than or equal to his 32

+ over 100,000 converted SAT scores equivalent or better than a 32 ACT

= over 200,000 students each year

Anonymous wrote:
Of course, I am suggesting "solely" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria. That doesn't mean the successful students who get admission offers are one dimensional.

Aaaannnnd... no one said the latter.

So, should non-academic skills be valued in admission or not?

Anonymous wrote:It has tax exempt status and hence it doesn't pay taxes on its revenue, be it tuition and other fee from students or profits from its endowment fund investments. We will see in the next few years what the courts (all the way to SCOTUS) will determine. Just because Harvard is a private university it can't do willy nilly anything it pleases.

Do you apply the same rules to all non-profits? Churches, charities, and private clubs?

Harvard is not doing "willy nilly anything it pleases". It is following a well-defined criteria for admissions based on its institutional objectives. And a third time, you haven't answered the question: Why should it do what you want and not what it thinks is best?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG! What makes you think someone who is focused on developing academic excellence has no time or opportunity to develop social and emotional skills, will not be able to react to stressful work situations, and make emotional connections?

Ummm, YOU for one, by suggesting "SOLELY" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria.

Still haven't answered the question, also. If Harvard thinks they are better at being Harvard by giving admissions points to recruited athletes, who are you to say they are wrong?

Of course, I am suggesting "solely" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria. That doesn't mean the successful students who get admission offers are one dimensional. They can very well develop all the other admirable soft skills, empathy, understanding, etc. by having engaged in a variety of pursuits over a long period of their young age without Harvard giving any extra points (preference) for them. After all, I don't know about you but I never studied at Harvard and billions of other people around the world never stepped foot on Harvard campus. It doesn't mean we are all devoid of the skills you highlighted. As for Harvard being a private institute and so can do as it pleases, Harvard gets hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars each your in the form of research grants. Whenever its scientists develop and patent their work Harvard benefits. It has tax exempt status and hence it doesn't pay taxes on its revenue, be it tuition and other fee from students or profits from its endowment fund investments. We will see in the next few years what the courts (all the way to SCOTUS) will determine. Just because Harvard is a private university it can't do willy nilly anything it pleases.

Anonymous wrote:

OMG! What makes you think someone who is focused on developing academic excellence has no time or opportunity to develop social and emotional skills, will not be able to react to stressful work situations, and make emotional connections?

Ummm, YOU for one, by suggesting "SOLELY" academic excellence be considered as an admission criteria.

Still haven't answered the question, also. If Harvard thinks they are better at being Harvard by giving admissions points to recruited athletes, who are you to say they are wrong?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

About top tier colleges NEVER admitting based solely on academic achievement - until they started admitting women, they NEVER admitted women before, until they started admitting Blacks, they NEVER admitted before. After all this practice is not like written in the constitution and should not be violated! So this argument is moot. Times have changed. About CalTech being boring - ask the students who knowingly and willingly studying there. Students interested in academic excellence will select top tier colleges when such colleges admit solely based on academics. Students interested in academics and sports (even those wanting to have fun tailgating etc., not necessarily being on sports teams) can choose those colleges that have greater than 10% admit rate and practice current system of preferences. The colleges that boast less than 10% admit rate and every year make great marketing effort to attract even more students to bring down the admit rate to 5% and below (20 applicants to choose from to fill one seat) should not be allowed to apportion precious few seats to nonacademic preferences - except on the basis of first gen or economically poor families.

I don't even know how many Asians are among admitted athletes at Harvard and I am not concerned about that.

So by "academic achievement" you mean test scores?

Also, as someone asked before -- why should they admit based on criteria YOU select. They had good reasons to admit African Americans and women. What is their reason to change to admit based on test scores now?

I can think of many why they should not. For instance, you can make a strong case that someone who can get a 3.8/32 while playing sports is a better admit than one with a 4.0/35 with less time on ECs. It's not for me to judge which is better for Harvard to take based on what helps them acieve their institutional goals. And what about majors? That data point is often left out of any analysis...

Any employer, investor, potential partner, spouse--almost anybody--would prefer the former. Someone who can achieve academic success, while also being emotionally and socially successful with an ability to understand social cues, react to stressful work situations, make emotional connections. The very smart people at Harvard understand that those students who have one single, sole focus, do not wind up being the most successful leaders in this world. To the PP with his lame brained scheme, please, get your DC to a social skills class and have them play some sports. Let them have fun in life and learn how to connect with people.

OMG! What makes you think someone who is focused on developing academic excellence has no time or opportunity to develop social and emotional skills, will not be able to react to stressful work situations, and make emotional connections? It isn't this or that situation. Don't think one has to be involved in sports to the extent of colleges competing with one another to recruit them in preference category to develop the skills you point out. There are avenues like charity work, play team sports for fun, do part time job, work at summer camps, be involved and organize for social causes, be active in politics and canvass, etc. You can make friends, interact with strangers, face varied situations without playing travel sports, pay lots of money to private sports coaches, attend expensive sports camps to develop to be a recruited athlete to be a social being of admirable qualities. Just grow up will you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

About top tier colleges NEVER admitting based solely on academic achievement - until they started admitting women, they NEVER admitted women before, until they started admitting Blacks, they NEVER admitted before. After all this practice is not like written in the constitution and should not be violated! So this argument is moot. Times have changed. About CalTech being boring - ask the students who knowingly and willingly studying there. Students interested in academic excellence will select top tier colleges when such colleges admit solely based on academics. Students interested in academics and sports (even those wanting to have fun tailgating etc., not necessarily being on sports teams) can choose those colleges that have greater than 10% admit rate and practice current system of preferences. The colleges that boast less than 10% admit rate and every year make great marketing effort to attract even more students to bring down the admit rate to 5% and below (20 applicants to choose from to fill one seat) should not be allowed to apportion precious few seats to nonacademic preferences - except on the basis of first gen or economically poor families.

I don't even know how many Asians are among admitted athletes at Harvard and I am not concerned about that.

So by "academic achievement" you mean test scores?

Also, as someone asked before -- why should they admit based on criteria YOU select. They had good reasons to admit African Americans and women. What is their reason to change to admit based on test scores now?

I can think of many why they should not. For instance, you can make a strong case that someone who can get a 3.8/32 while playing sports is a better admit than one with a 4.0/35 with less time on ECs. It's not for me to judge which is better for Harvard to take based on what helps them acieve their institutional goals. And what about majors? That data point is often left out of any analysis...

Any employer, investor, potential partner, spouse--almost anybody--would prefer the former. Someone who can achieve academic success, while also being emotionally and socially successful with an ability to understand social cues, react to stressful work situations, make emotional connections. The very smart people at Harvard understand that those students who have one single, sole focus, do not wind up being the most successful leaders in this world. To the PP with his lame brained scheme, please, get your DC to a social skills class and have them play some sports. Let them have fun in life and learn how to connect with people.