Anonymous wrote:I don't know...I look at my kids' high school instagram page over the past few years and the majority of kids who are attending Ivy Leagues are Asians. It's not even close.

Correct. Just look at the demographics data for Ivy League schools (it’s public information and easily found online). The VAST majority of their students are white and Asian. Very few are URMs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.

MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.

How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?

I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.

It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?

GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.

The AOs know this.

The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade

The distain for people who work in education across this forum is so sad. If these failures are picking the classes, why would you want to be part of them? They suck at life, but somehow are able to put together talented cohorts year after year?

That was my point. And I "work in education." These people are putting together less and less talented cohorts every year. We have taken them to task on it numerous times but even tenured faculty cannot truly fight the beast of administrative bloat

If you think the AOs are driving, you aren't a faculty member who knows how a university works.

It'd be great if I could stop being accused of not being a faculty member. I will be sure to notify the university to revoke my tenure

The PP didn't say you weren't a faculty member. They said you are a faculty member that doesn't know how universities work.

Are you claiming that the admissions office at your university doesn't answer to anyone? They are an autonomous unit that doesn't have to consider institutional priorities? Please name this university. I agree that tenured faculty have no voice in the process, but that is because senior administration, the board of trustees/regents has all the power.

Reading comprehension is really at a low point among the anti-Asian folks. If you will, once again, read what I wrote, it literally says AO is beholden to the president and provost. Who are in turn beholden to regents. You are forming a straw man based on your inability to read my post

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.

The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.

Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.

Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test

I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.

Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.

Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.

Not even close to objective.

Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.

Good.

+1

Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30

+1

There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.

People are obsessed with T25s.

Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.

OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.

+100
they'll be much better off where they fit better

yep, less likely for people to assume that they didn't get in on their own merits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is funny to me...I have two 2nd generation Asian friends who are Ivy league grads. They care more about their schools abandoning legacy status than the AA case. One friend's kid is an athlete that is getting some interest as well, so that friend is definitely playing that angle.

They understand the college game and are playing it...and they don't really want it to change.

It is funny how you are applying the views of two Asian Americans that you know compared to the vast majority of Asian Americans who disagree with race based admissions and legacy.

I don't know a single Asian American who supports race based admissions, and I'm Asian American. So, I have a feeling I probably know more Asian Americans than you do.

Except, you probably don't know many that graduated from Ivy league schools and are wealthy...or you wouldn't cry about that here.

My point is that nobody argues about the issue from any philosophical or altruistic viewpoint. They argue about it from their own narrow lens.

If the current system helps your kid, you don't want it to change...if it hurts them, you do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.

The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.

Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.

Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test

I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.

Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.

Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.

Not even close to objective.

Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.

Good.

+1

Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30

+1

There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.

People are obsessed with T25s.

Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.

OK, then tell that to the URM who apply to T25. Tell them they should aim lower T100 to T200. It fits them better.

+100
they'll be much better off where they fit better

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.

The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.

Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.

Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test

I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.

Oh geez. Some people just do well without expensive test prep. My brother and I both scored in the top 1 percent and were national merit scholar finalists and neither of us took a class. We did buy practice books and did a bunch of practice problems. Yes we are Asian (South Asian).

THAT IS TEST PREP.

YOU SHOULD PREP FOR YOUR GPA TOO WHEN YOU TAKE TESTS, MIDTERMS, FINALS, ETC.

Study and test prep are different. Study is content. Test prep is some content but primarily HOW to take the test such as shortcuts that are not taught in math classes which allow you not to spend time on problems working through them and provide more time to answer more questions, and practice questions from previous tests, etc.

Test prep makes a difference because of how you take the exam not whether you can learn new information, handle the courseload, use critical thinking, etc. Test prep is the automation of the process which is why you have kids who without any test prep score a 1300 and then are compared to someone who has the advantage of test prep scoring a 1450. Thats not transparency. That is not a level playing field.

+1000

My kid started with a 1320 on their "test assessment". Did 4 hours of Targeted tutoring (1-1) and on the next practice test got a 1500. All future practice tests and real testing resulted within 20 points of 1500. That 1-1 test prep taught the "test skills" and how to analyze what questions they were getting wrong on the math, so they ended up with an 800 math.
However, I'm 100% certain the 1-1 test prep is what taught those skills, much better and faster than a big ass SAT test prep book with individualized learning.
However, we are privileged and can afford the test prep and have the time to commit to that. Had my kid wanted, another 20 hours+ and they could have gotten the Verbal up to 750+, but we concluded that was a waste of $$$ and time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t China. The government does not tell schools what to do.

U.S. Supreme Court will. Haha.

Not using race is not the same as caring about test scores. I wonder if the plaintiffs will be exited about SES and geographic diversity being emphasized

Anonymous wrote:What is funny to me...I have two 2nd generation Asian friends who are Ivy league grads. They care more about their schools abandoning legacy status than the AA case. One friend's kid is an athlete that is getting some interest as well, so that friend is definitely playing that angle.

They understand the college game and are playing it...and they don't really want it to change.

It is funny how you are applying the views of two Asian Americans that you know compared to the vast majority of Asian Americans who disagree with race based admissions and legacy.

I don't know a single Asian American who supports race based admissions, and I'm Asian American. So, I have a feeling I probably know more Asian Americans than you do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand all the fuss. This kid is just as likely to reach his full potential at Georgia Tech as he is at MIT.

Of course if you get discriminated and rejected entry to a restaurant, you can simply go to the next one that doesn't discriminate.
Eat there.

However, the US system so messed up.
We better find out any injustice, and fix them to improve.

Firstly, getting rejected at a "highly rejective school" is not discrimination. It's statistics. 95% of those applying are "highly qualified" yet 95% will get rejected---it's nothing special against your kid, just that they didn't win the lottery along with the other 95%

Oh the horrors. A kid was rejected at MIT/Stanford/CMU/Harvard so they end up at GaTEch. That kid will also be just fine at a CWRU/RPI/similar schools. They will get their CS/Math/Eng degree and work alongside kids from MIT/Stanford/etc....assuming they can somehow recover from not attending a T20 school and find their path in life. Keep us posted with how they do

+1 I like this list of where NASA engineers went to college--almost all public universities.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/engineering/

It's just one place, but I don't see any reason to believe lists for other desirable employers would be any different.

As someone stated... going to these elite schools opens up a lot more doors. You are starting on 3rd base already graduating from college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.

The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.

Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.

Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test

I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.

Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.

Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.

Not even close to objective.

Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.

Good.

+1

Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30

well, holistic admissions, and "likeability" was added by these colleges as a way to discriminate against Jews. And yet, we still have it.

At least a URM can study for SATs, but no matter how "likeable" an Asian American student is, the AO can just mark them as "unlikeable" without ever having met the applicant.

Seems holistic admissions is far worse in terms of discriminatory practices than SAT scores.

It is not discriminatory to desire a balanced, richly diverse cohort. This means that there is a quota for every single conceivable category, not just race/ethnicity. And that test scores are merely one factor in a holistic review, and not the most important one beyond a certain threshold. There are many colleges in the world that admit based solely on test scores, yet those countries are much less well known for innovation and social mobility. You are welcome to focus on those.

It is discriminatory if you are trying to achieve that said balance by marking mostly Asian American applicants as "not likeable" having never met them.

I'll ask again.. if a black person was applying for a job, and the hiring team marked them as "not likeable" even though they never met the applicant, wouldn't that raise red flags as being discriminatory? I don't see the difference here.

As stated earlier, if they scored likeability based on the interviewer's feedback, then you have a point, but that's not what is happening. Rather, the AO is marking them as "not likeable" even as the interviewer marked them as "likeable".

That is the discriminatory issue. The "holistic" admissions that they are using is a way to discriminate against one group, much like they did with Jews. And before you say, "oh but there are so many Asian Americans at Harvard, how are they being discriminated against", I'll remind you that there were "so many" Jews at Harvard, too, when Harvard decided to use this holistic admissions to limit their numbers further because they saw that only using stats meant even more Jews. It was wrong then. Why is it not wrong now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone with a PhD from the Ivy League who taught the undergrads, I can assure all the people saying this guy is a dime a dozen are mistaken. There are so many morons who slip through the cracks of the Ivy League admissions system that it's shocking. I think about 10% of folks in classes I taught probably shouldn't have been in college at all. Others were ver mid, reminiscent of a typical state school student. The fact this guy got rejected by so many schools is entirely indicative of anti Asian racism imo

There are tons of students that have these stats who get rejected - not just Asian. I know a handful, myself. I would imagine those like me also know a (different) handful. It is not as "uncommon" as you would like to believe. Same as it is not "uncommon" to have advanced degree/s from ivy/MIT/top universities in this geographical area (and a few other geographical areas). Just as so many on DCUM are "professors" (usually adjunct) - also a dime a dozen. It has nothing to do with being Asian, but it is a hot topic right now, so someone is trying to draw attention to it.

American Universities have a specific mission to NOT contain one ethnicity of student. In fact, we fought more than one war over this same type of thing. Just drop it.

Well I am not an adjunct. I am a tenured professor at a top 50 research university. And my point was that the insane push toward ethnic diversity and diversity of other types has to a large extent pushed great students out of our schools. At no point in my post did I say it is NOT common for someone of this kid's stats to get rejected. If you read what I wrote, I said he is not a dime a dozen compared to students who get ADMITTED. The students who are admitted include a very large group idiots. If you don't think rejecting highly intelligent people and admitting idiots is a problem, then I don't think I'm interested in talking with you

NP--No top 50 research university is admitting idiots. They may be admitting some very smart students who aren't super interested in learning or who have addictions or mental health issues that keep them from showing you their potential, but they're not idiots.

The only idiots they are admitting are possibly legacies/well connected kids, not the general population of students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

I think high SAT scores are a predictor of future career success, but not necessarily college grades.

Both thought processes are wrong. GPA is a better predictor, and studies show that. Career success has to do with drive, determination, motivation. Someone who gets upset they cannot win the lottery and cannot pivot and focus on the next level of schools (25-60ish) as great choices filled with smart people does not fit the definition of "success". Someone who feels they are entitled to elite university admissions when it's a lottery is not an indicator of future success.

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t China. The government does not tell schools what to do.

U.S. Supreme Court will. Haha.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.

The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.

Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.

Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test

I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.

Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.

Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.

Not even close to objective.

Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.

Good.

+1

Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30

+1

There are good schools even from #31 through #200 or so.

People are obsessed with T25s.

Expectations for college admissions need to get reset.

What is funny to me...I have two 2nd generation Asian friends who are Ivy league grads. They care more about their schools abandoning legacy status than the AA case. One friend's kid is an athlete that is getting some interest as well, so that friend is definitely playing that angle.

They understand the college game and are playing it...and they don't really want it to change.