Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

The article proposes, among others, that students whose parents are poor are given an applications boost by setting a lower bar for admission using SAT results.

I'm sitting here, peeking at DCUM, while my middle schooler works on her school work on a Saturday and practices her EC. Outside we can hear lower-income kids play ball. The same kids bully my child on the school bus as a nerd. In school, they are given lunch ISS during which time they throw their food in my child's path. Now, according to the New York Times, these students are to be given a lower bar - perhaps this way, they can continue bullying my hardworking child while in college.

That these ideas are seriously entertained is beyond me - but needless to say, those on the receiving end will remember how they were treated by progressives.

If your kid lives near and goes to school with lower-income kids, your kid should be eligible for many of the preferences described in the article.

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

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

My kid had super high states: 1580 sat, 4.92 wgpa, 4.0 uw, from a magnet. Got denied at T10. DC is fine. At a B1G flagship and doing fine.

It was an ego hit, to be sure, but they are fine. Straight As in college so far.

If these kids have mental health issues because they are striving so hard to get into a T10, that is the partly the parent's fault. You should be telling your kid that T10 is not the end all that be all, that it is basically a lottery to get into a T10, especially if the T10 go with what that article describes.

I'm 100% behind giving a boost to low income kids. I do not support boosting by race, but I do support boosting by income.

I grew up in a lower income house, immigrant family. Went to a "bad" HS, surrounded by a lot of low income kids. There were a handful of really smart kids, and they could've used a boost in college admissions, and I would include myself in that. I graduated top 15 in my class, but my scores were still not high enough for T10 at the time. My parents knew nothing about prep or college admissions. I had to navigate it on my own. I've done alright for myself, but I think I could've done so much better if I had been given this kind of chance.

A boost like this means everything to low income smart kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Unrealistic, I know.

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

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

Wow so compelling. Better than expected.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Unrealistic, I know.

This is not about just the top 20. The article looked at top 80 (!). I’m not encouraging DCs to shoot for top 20 as I realize that is a lottery even for tippy top kids.

But yes I sure as heck want a top 80 school for both kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

+1
I’m a NYT subscriber, Anyone But Trump, Biden voter, pro choice, kids in public school. And agree that most comments on immigration and education reflect what’s now a moderate position which means not in line with progressive positions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Not necessarily. There are concerted efforts on public comment sites -- this or social media -- to influence the narrative. I would not draw conclusions about NYT readers' views from comments thread on an article.

I’m the person you’re quoting and I disagree to with you mostly. DCUM, Reddit, Twitter, public forums, etc. yes, this may be the case. But NYT, WSJ, and WaPo require a paid subscription with your billing attached to comment. They’re not getting brigaded by people with an agenda.

No they don't. They require you to create a log in, but you don't have to be a paid subscriber.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Not necessarily. There are concerted efforts on public comment sites -- this or social media -- to influence the narrative. I would not draw conclusions about NYT readers' views from comments thread on an article.

I’m the person you’re quoting and I disagree to with you mostly. DCUM, Reddit, Twitter, public forums, etc. yes, this may be the case. But NYT, WSJ, and WaPo require a paid subscription with your billing attached to comment. They’re not getting brigaded by people with an agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

The article proposes, among others, that students whose parents are poor are given an applications boost by setting a lower bar for admission using SAT results.

I'm sitting here, peeking at DCUM, while my middle schooler works on her school work on a Saturday and practices her EC. Outside we can hear lower-income kids play ball. The same kids bully my child on the school bus as a nerd. In school, they are given lunch ISS during which time they throw their food in my child's path. Now, according to the New York Times, these students are to be given a lower bar - perhaps this way, they can continue bullying my hardworking child while in college.

That these ideas are seriously entertained is beyond me - but needless to say, those on the receiving end will remember how they were treated by progressives.

On the other hand, I have a client, a high schooler in foster care. She missed almost her whole 9th grade year because her mother had a mental health crisis and she had to stay home to take care of younger siblings. She was eventually removed from her home, separated from those siblings and her mother, and spent 10th grade in a variety of foster homes. She has been in the same foster home now for 11th and 12 grade and is very smart -- despite all that disrupted education, she is at the top of her class and tried (with limited success) to manage DCPS's dual enrollment program with no adult help. Her school offers no AP classes.

I don't think she did that great on the SATs, but she would absolutely be an asset to any college (even if she needs some tutoring to make up for holes in her ed background).

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

The article proposes, among others, that students whose parents are poor are given an applications boost by setting a lower bar for admission using SAT results.

I'm sitting here, peeking at DCUM, while my middle schooler works on her school work on a Saturday and practices her EC. Outside we can hear lower-income kids play ball. The same kids bully my child on the school bus as a nerd. In school, they are given lunch ISS during which time they throw their food in my child's path. Now, according to the New York Times, these students are to be given a lower bar - perhaps this way, they can continue bullying my hardworking child while in college.

That these ideas are seriously entertained is beyond me - but needless to say, those on the receiving end will remember how they were treated by progressives.

Anonymous wrote:Weird obsession over race. I get that the white male is the enemy of mankind, but it is getting convulted trying to game college admissions to achieve a predetermined outcome.

All your extrapolation yields an inaccurate assessment. Here's the problem. Diversity is not about the white male. It's about a rich educational environment. Diverse experiences, races, geographies, world views, etc enrich the educational value of any university body.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Not necessarily. There are concerted efforts on public comment sites -- this or social media -- to influence the narrative. I would not draw conclusions about NYT readers' views from comments thread on an article.

Here’s a radical idea: shouldn’t the mechanics be on making better pre schools for all and then elementary education so that no matter your race and income level that you learn how to read early, hear many words being spoken, socialize in group environments rather than stuffing colleges with the end game? How hard is it for a kid who gets a 300 point rando boost to actually do the work in a sea of hyper competitive students these days?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scenario 4 is expanding the applicant pool.

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

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

But what high schools are they currently visiting? I am certain that Sidwell hosts more college reps than Dunbar.

The ivies actually do a really good job of going to schools in lower socioeconomic areas.

It’s the need-aware schools that aren’t as good at that.

Weird obsession over race. I get that the white male is the enemy of mankind, but it is getting convulted trying to game college admissions to achieve a predetermined outcome.

Anonymous wrote:Scenario 4 is expanding the applicant pool.

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

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

But what high schools are they currently visiting? I am certain that Sidwell hosts more college reps than Dunbar.