Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Guess what? Harvard will continue to use personality scores; they will just eliminate race and gender from the scoring criteria. And instead they will substitute things that are proxies for socioeconomic status: private vs. public school, zip code or voting precinct, wealth or education level of guardians, first generation, etc. The most elite schools will find ways to keep their student body diverse.

That’s why the other half of the case is more important. Public schools won’t have the resources to follow suit, and most of the good ones outside of the UC system and Washington are in red or purple states where there will be pressure to follow the law

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not really the case. We’re at such a school and kids get zero counseling or help with school selection. My daughter spoke to a counselor for ten min at the start of senior year and that was it. The counselors focus on getting kids to graduate, they don’t have the bandwidth to care about what colleges the kids go to. Looking at Naviance, a lot of top schools never accept the high stats kids who apply from our school and it’s probably because they think the kids aren’t prepared.

And if you're honest, most are not prepared. Pretty much the only ones are those who self-study outside of school. My kids go to a similar (in their case DCPS) high school and the quality of instruction is basically pretty terrible (two of my kids' classes don't even currently have teachers).

Is this Jackson-Reed? My kid is there. I wish we could get out. It frustrates me when GDS parents I know claim that my kid has an advantage getting into college compared to their kids. If that was true, then how is it that one third of the GDS kids end up at Ivies

GDS college stats look better for the same reason that people who want their kids out of Jackson Reed can’t- $$$

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Guess what? Harvard will continue to use personality scores; they will just eliminate race and gender from the scoring criteria. And instead they will substitute things that are proxies for socioeconomic status: private vs. public school, zip code or voting precinct, wealth or education level of guardians, first generation, etc. The most elite schools will find ways to keep their student body diverse.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not really the case. We’re at such a school and kids get zero counseling or help with school selection. My daughter spoke to a counselor for ten min at the start of senior year and that was it. The counselors focus on getting kids to graduate, they don’t have the bandwidth to care about what colleges the kids go to. Looking at Naviance, a lot of top schools never accept the high stats kids who apply from our school and it’s probably because they think the kids aren’t prepared.

Sounds like your kid talked to a guidance counselor not the college counselor. Again, you or your child must do your own homework when it comes to college admissions

There is no college counselor. She saw the only person offered. There is one person called the college coordinator for 584 seniors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see whether the ruling prohibits consideration of gender.

I don’t see why colleges would eliminate preference for athletes if affirmative action is banned. What’s the rationale?

I understand why ED and legacy could be eliminated but it may not be in the colleges’ interests to do so.

Right - I think the OP’s topic headline doesn’t reflect the article. It did refer to ED and legacy admissions being at risk, but not athletic preferences at all. Colleges definitely do NOT look at them the same way.

If anything, colleges are going to rely upon athletic preferences even more because that’s a clear race-blind way that can have the effect of increasing underrepresented minority students.

PP here - except that the VAST majority of college athletes are white. There are a few, disproportionately popular sports where Black athletes are overrepresented, but they represent a small portion of college athletes. Sports like soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, tennis, cross country, squash, fencing, sailing, crew, golf, swimming and diving—they’re all overwhelmingly white. That’s part of why athletic preferences are part of the debate: many privileged, white kids get admissions preferences because of athletics.

At the end of the day, though, athletic achievement IS merit-based (or at least should be outside of Varsity Blues scandal-type situations), which is vastly different than legacy programs that are based on being lucky enough to be born with alumni parents or born into a financial situation where they don’t need to worry about financial aid and apply ED.

My point is that athletic preferences are actually *not* a debate at these colleges. They might be part of the debate on forums like this one for the reasons that you’ve given (e.g. the “country club sports”), but they are NOT being looped into the same category as legacy preferences and ED. Once again, the OP misrepresented the article, which mentioned legacy and ED admissions being under scrutiny but not a single word about athletic preferences being under scrutiny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not really the case. We’re at such a school and kids get zero counseling or help with school selection. My daughter spoke to a counselor for ten min at the start of senior year and that was it. The counselors focus on getting kids to graduate, they don’t have the bandwidth to care about what colleges the kids go to. Looking at Naviance, a lot of top schools never accept the high stats kids who apply from our school and it’s probably because they think the kids aren’t prepared.

And if you're honest, most are not prepared. Pretty much the only ones are those who self-study outside of school. My kids go to a similar (in their case DCPS) high school and the quality of instruction is basically pretty terrible (two of my kids' classes don't even currently have teachers).

Is this Jackson-Reed? My kid is there. I wish we could get out. It frustrates me when GDS parents I know claim that my kid has an advantage getting into college compared to their kids. If that was true, then how is it that one third of the GDS kids end up at Ivies

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

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.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Man, out of all of the arguments that I see on this issue, this is the one that I can’t stand the most.

The whole point is that colleges are using targeted methods to specifically depress the number of Asian students because, based on merit (and I’m talking about extracurricular activities, too, not just robotic-like grades and test scores), they would be an even larger share of their student classes. Asians are actually *underrepresented* at elite colleges compared to their percentage of the top academic talent.

The simple way to look at it is if we “find and replace” any reference to “Asian” with “Black” in the fact pattern.

Let’s say that out of Harvard applicants, Black students had the best GPAs, top test scores, and just as good or better metrics on extracurricular activities and in-person interviews than every other race (including whites). Yet, Harvard is worried that their classes would have too many Black students compared to other racial groups (including whites). Therefore, they use the admissions office to assign a totally subjective “personality score” that just “coincidentally” gives Black students lower scores compared to every other racial group and, as a result, depresses their admissions.

Just imagine if that was the fact pattern. We wouldn’t be having a discussion if that was racist or not - it’s pretty obvious. Yet, when we “find and replace” that fact pattern with references to Asians instead, it’s somehow isn’t racist?!

It bothers me so much because I actually *do* consider myself a liberal that believes in DEI efforts and can’t stand that my fellow liberals can’t simply acknowledge on this college admissions issue that they are outright discriminating against one minority group in favor of other minority groups. Instead, it’s all hemming and hawing about the value of diversity (as long as it’s the “right mix” of diversity), somehow Asians aren’t being discriminated against (often pointing to your “overrepresentation compared to the general population” argument, and pretty much every argument other than facing the fact that the tools they’re using are lowering Asian student numbers even more than white student numbers.

If that were at least acknowledged and then argued that such discrimination is outweighed by the greater good for allowing more Black and Latino students into elite colleges, then we can at least get somewhere even if we might not all agree. However, it’s the lack of the acknowledgment or outright denial of the discriminatory impact on Asian students in the first place that’s insulting (because as I’ve shown in my “find and replace” fact pattern above, Harvard’s tactics would be unambiguously seen as racist if it were Blacks and Latinos impacted as opposed to Asians).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not really the case. We’re at such a school and kids get zero counseling or help with school selection. My daughter spoke to a counselor for ten min at the start of senior year and that was it. The counselors focus on getting kids to graduate, they don’t have the bandwidth to care about what colleges the kids go to. Looking at Naviance, a lot of top schools never accept the high stats kids who apply from our school and it’s probably because they think the kids aren’t prepared.

Sounds like your kid talked to a guidance counselor not the college counselor. Again, you or your child must do your own homework when it comes to college admissions

In my poor high school, the guidance counselor and the college counselor were - wait for it - the same person!!! I was a good student with stellar extracurricular who got close to no help with college applications. It's real.

My father was a doctor in rural Tennessee and I went to a large poor high school. My counselor (there was only one type) had never heard of half of my college list and thought I was nuts to apply early to Bowdoin

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No obvious logical connection between loss of AA and need to get rid of legacy and athletic admits. This is basically the colleges petulantly threatening to take away our dessert if we don’t eat our peas.

Depends on the rationale. There are Asian Americans on this site threatening to bring discriminatory impact suits against every college with a football team. And they think they’ll win.

They are delusional. College football means a lot more to conservatives in this country than perceived discrimination

I agree, but I’m not sure I trust the Court to write this spring’s opinion with this in mind. The Harvard personality thing cries out for rhetoric about discriminatory impact.

Lol. Because YOU could do so much better?

Not at all, I just think a lot of Supreme Court opinions have unanticipated consequences. I don’t think the Brown v Board Court intended to accelerate white flight, and yet …

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see whether the ruling prohibits consideration of gender.

I don’t see why colleges would eliminate preference for athletes if affirmative action is banned. What’s the rationale?

I understand why ED and legacy could be eliminated but it may not be in the colleges’ interests to do so.

Right - I think the OP’s topic headline doesn’t reflect the article. It did refer to ED and legacy admissions being at risk, but not athletic preferences at all. Colleges definitely do NOT look at them the same way.

If anything, colleges are going to rely upon athletic preferences even more because that’s a clear race-blind way that can have the effect of increasing underrepresented minority students.

Except that the VAST majority of college athletes are white. There are a few, disproportionately popular sports where Black athletes are overrepresented, but they represent a small portion of college athletes. Sports like soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, tennis, cross country, squash, fencing, sailing, crew, golf, swimming and diving—they’re all overwhelmingly white. That’s part of why athletic preferences are part of the debate: many privileged, white kids get admissions preferences because of athletics.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not really the case. We’re at such a school and kids get zero counseling or help with school selection. My daughter spoke to a counselor for ten min at the start of senior year and that was it. The counselors focus on getting kids to graduate, they don’t have the bandwidth to care about what colleges the kids go to. Looking at Naviance, a lot of top schools never accept the high stats kids who apply from our school and it’s probably because they think the kids aren’t prepared.

Sounds like your kid talked to a guidance counselor not the college counselor. Again, you or your child must do your own homework when it comes to college admissions

In my poor high school, the guidance counselor and the college counselor were - wait for it - the same person!!! I was a good student with stellar extracurricular who got close to no help with college applications. It's real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No obvious logical connection between loss of AA and need to get rid of legacy and athletic admits. This is basically the colleges petulantly threatening to take away our dessert if we don’t eat our peas.

Depends on the rationale. There are Asian Americans on this site threatening to bring discriminatory impact suits against every college with a football team. And they think they’ll win.

They are delusional. College football means a lot more to conservatives in this country than perceived discrimination

I agree, but I’m not sure I trust the Court to write this spring’s opinion with this in mind. The Harvard personality thing cries out for rhetoric about discriminatory impact.

If the test is impact, the absolutely no criteria can stand including academics. I don’t think the court is that stupid

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.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews