Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

So, they have identified the things that make it messed up and the want to recommend doing more of those? Ok.

Expanding financial aid is going to make it more messed up? Reducing admissions preferences is going to make it more messed up?

Preferences for who or why? More international? More unqualified? If it was working why are universities “really messed up?” Seems like they’d be saying it’s never been better.

Preferences for advantaged people which probably mostly translates to financially advantaged.

How can they have been doing that at the same time as having a preference for FGLI? Clearly that preference comes at the expense of the other preferences. 50-60% are already on financial aid. Do you think it should be 100%?

Wake up. Places like yale are hardly infested with fgli students. There are some not a lot. And do you even know the sticker price? Yes, most families would need financial assistance to be able to send students to a place that expensive. The fact that 40% don't need aid is exactly part of the problem.

I can't keep DCUM straight. Either Yale is all private school kids or all FGLI

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

Anonymous wrote:Yale has traditionally been a home for conservative Republicans: William Howard Taft, his son Robert Taft ("Mr. Republican"), Bush the elder and Bush the younger. William F. Buckley, Jr. the father of modern conservatism. Not sure if that is true any more.

It is, just not the "David Duke" type of republican that is in power now. Yale has never been a home for them, thank God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

So, they have identified the things that make it messed up and the want to recommend doing more of those? Ok.

Expanding financial aid is going to make it more messed up? Reducing admissions preferences is going to make it more messed up?

Preferences for who or why? More international? More unqualified? If it was working why are universities “really messed up?” Seems like they’d be saying it’s never been better.

Preferences for advantaged people which probably mostly translates to financially advantaged.

How can they have been doing that at the same time as having a preference for FGLI? Clearly that preference comes at the expense of the other preferences. 50-60% are already on financial aid. Do you think it should be 100%?

Wake up. Places like yale are hardly infested with fgli students. There are some not a lot. And do you even know the sticker price? Yes, most families would need financial assistance to be able to send students to a place that expensive. The fact that 40% don't need aid is exactly part of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

Which admissions preferences will go? Legacy? Athletics?

FGLI and geography.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich coming from Yale, who only accepts legacy donors from our top private.

Not for much longer perhaps. no more legacy. maybe no more feeder privates.

Is the committee from Yale anyone who can actual impact change, or has a say overriding whomever is guarding the endowment? If it's just a bunch of starry eyed professors, then this study won't do a danged thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

So, they have identified the things that make it messed up and the want to recommend doing more of those? Ok.

Expanding financial aid is going to make it more messed up? Reducing admissions preferences is going to make it more messed up?

Preferences for who or why? More international? More unqualified? If it was working why are universities “really messed up?” Seems like they’d be saying it’s never been better.

Preferences for advantaged people which probably mostly translates to financially advantaged.

How can they have been doing that at the same time as having a preference for FGLI? Clearly that preference comes at the expense of the other preferences. 50-60% are already on financial aid. Do you think it should be 100%?

Yale has traditionally been a home for conservative Republicans: William Howard Taft, his son Robert Taft ("Mr. Republican"), Bush the elder and Bush the younger. William F. Buckley, Jr. the father of modern conservatism. Not sure if that is true any more.

From the Yale report: Universities were “expected to be all things to all people: selective but inclusive, affordable but luxurious, meritocratic but equitable.”

I think this is exactly the problem. Individual schools need to pick a lane on each choice, and stop trying to split the baby. Even more so for private schools that don't have an obligation to the public. Applicants will sort themselves if you are clear about your mandate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

So, they have identified the things that make it messed up and the want to recommend doing more of those? Ok.

Expanding financial aid is going to make it more messed up? Reducing admissions preferences is going to make it more messed up?

Preferences for who or why? More international? More unqualified? If it was working why are universities “really messed up?” Seems like they’d be saying it’s never been better.

Preferences for advantaged people which probably mostly translates to financially advantaged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

So, they have identified the things that make it messed up and the want to recommend doing more of those? Ok.

Expanding financial aid is going to make it more messed up? Reducing admissions preferences is going to make it more messed up?

Preferences for who or why? More international? More unqualified? If it was working why are universities “really messed up?” Seems like they’d be saying it’s never been better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

So, they have identified the things that make it messed up and the want to recommend doing more of those? Ok.

you have issues with these things?

Aren’t they arleady doing those things? How’s that been working out?

What admission preferences have been eliminated? Legacy, faculty, kids, Athletics, VIP donors, feeder schools? I think there's plenty of room for improvement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

So, they have identified the things that make it messed up and the want to recommend doing more of those? Ok.

you have issues with these things?

Aren’t they arleady doing those things? How’s that been working out?

Anonymous wrote:None of my landscapers speak or read English

Okay, but let's use their opinion about higher education to bolster my opinion this morning and then deport their sorry ass this afternoon.