Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

Just sour grapes from the PP.

+1

Not to mention, how much "transparency" does China have?? GTFOH.

It's really a huge shame that the US has less transparency than even China when it comes to college admission. seriously WTF

Once again, if China is so awesome, you are free to go there and experience this awesome system.

So you agree that US college admission system is less transparent than even China.

Do you agree with every parts of every US systems. Is that why you are here?

I'm not sure about you, but I think there are rooms to make improvements in many arears in this country.

I care about this country where my kids were born, so unlike you I don't just leave just because I you don't like something.

I like to see improvements and progress.

I was born here, no plans to leave. I do NOT think the Western European, china, India ways of tracking kids at an early age is a better system. So I will fight to not change to that.

The main problem with our current system appears to be many feel "entitled" to an elite university experience because they "worked so hard and got high test scores over 12 years". The blinders are on and they cannot recognize there are not enough spaces for everyone who is highly qualified. And somehow refuse to recognize this and search for great Target and safety schools. Nobody is saying you cannot get an education. You can---most likely at a 25-50 ranked school---still excellent choice and it will not hold your kid back at all, unless they come from an area of entitlement/privilege that they are too good for those schools.

Reaches are just that---reaches for every DAMN person who applies, unless you are an athlete or kid of a president/last name of Bezos or gates/etc. So reach for the stars, but have a good plan in place for if that doesn't work. Because statistically, it will not work out.
It seems many entitled kids this is the first time money and privilege has not bought them everything they wanted. And they cannot seem to recognize their extreme privilege over most of the other kids in the US

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like he spent too much money and time on test prep and not enough time becoming an interesting human.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"

Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.

But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well

No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing

Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?

There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.

DP.. why does it matter what the Asian American population is compared to the % of total population? Since when does any institution have to reflect the overall population? The reason why Asian American population is higher in colleges is because they apply to college at a higher rate; they value education. Other groups don't, I guess.

I don't know if Asian Americans are "smarter", but they sure have higher stats.

And if you look at the stats in the Harvard case, a black student from a UMC with lower stats has a better chance of getting in compared to an Asian American student from a MC family with higher stats.

Do you think a middle class Asian American student really has more academic and opportunity than an UMC black student with two lawyer parents?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

URMs can apply to whatever school they want - just like everyone else.

The colleges will decide, T25s included.

I don't hear people telling high stats URM to aim low to T100 to T200. I only hear people telling that to Asian Americans, "There are plenty of good colleges out there".

Yes, they can apply to wherever they want to, but apparently certain schools discriminate against only one group.

Ummm, because the majority of High stats URMs already have plenty in the 50-200 range on their list, including ones they know they can AFFORD. They apply to the T25 as a true reach and hope they get in---if not they are not complaining, they likely will just attend the local state u with 80% acceptance rate that gives them a full ride because they NEED affordable, and closer to home means minimal travel expenses. Majority of high stats URMs don't attend T25 schools. They don't feel entitled to that and don't complain if they don't get in or cannot afford it. They are realistic and not jaded by expecting to get everything they want in life---they learned a long time ago to work hard and keep working hard even if you don't get what you want.

It may surprise you, but a lot of Asian American kids also apply to T50 and below.

And the reason why high stats URM don't complain is because they already know that the system is rigged in their favor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

China and India aren't the only countries that don't use the "likeability" factor. The UK doesn't; Canada doesn't.

Only the US uses it, and it started with trying to discriminate against Jews. Now, they use it to discriminate against Asian Americans.

If a 1580 kid was rejected over a 1550 kid, I can understand that. But, if you look at the stats, it shows that stats for certain groups are *much* lower than Asian Americans. The bar for Asian Americans is higher already than for URM, and these colleges made it even higher by adding in the ridiculous "likeability" factor (again, used to historically discriminate against Jews).

Jews are not likesble what’s the big whoop

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

China and India aren't the only countries that don't use the "likeability" factor. The UK doesn't; Canada doesn't.

Only the US uses it, and it started with trying to discriminate against Jews. Now, they use it to discriminate against Asian Americans.

If a 1580 kid was rejected over a 1550 kid, I can understand that. But, if you look at the stats, it shows that stats for certain groups are *much* lower than Asian Americans. The bar for Asian Americans is higher already than for URM, and these colleges made it even higher by adding in the ridiculous "likeability" factor (again, used to historically discriminate against Jews).

Jews are not likesble what’s the big whoop

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"

Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.

But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well

No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing

Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?

There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"

Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.

But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well

No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing

Harvard is ~30% asian for the most recent class. Berkeley is ~40% asian students.
USA is less than 10% persons of asian decent. How is it systemic racism? Each school admits a higher population of Asians than exist in the US population.
Are you now going to argue that asians are "just smarter" than everyone else and thus deserve to attend Harvard at a higher rate?

There are so many reasons he did not get accepted and race is likely not it. Berkeley is test blind and does not do AA for over a decade. Fact is while he is a great candidate, Harvard acceptance rate is single digits. 9+ kids are rejected for every 1 that is accepted. 8 out of every 9 kids rejected is likely considered" highly qualified" for Harvard (and any other T25). Yet the school has to reject all 9, so the first is easy, they are "not qualified", the other 8 could easily get the coveted spot, so the difference comes down to ECs, volunteering, personal essays, teacher recommendations, etc. 9 kids out of 10 will be disappointed. You did not read the essays or Teacher recs or see the volunteering or ECs, etc. You have no way to know why the choice was made. And a lot of it may be preferences---the AO liked the kid's essay, or the kid had an intriguing volunteer situation where they seemed to be genuinely engaged vs most who are just doing what they think will get them into a top school. You really have no clue what it is---99.9999% chance that race is NOT the reason. And if it seems that way, it's much more likely that Harvard saw an outstanding person who is first gen, low income and they want to give them the opportunity of attending Harvard---race is likely just a byproduct for you to scream "racism" ---it's very likely the person was admitted for being lower income or grabbed the AO attention due to being low income and how the persevered thru their life struggles and are somehow still a great candidate. So yes, I guess you are "discriminated against" for growing up with privilege, but that is a really convoluted way of looking at things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"

Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.

But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well

No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing

Do you believe that ONLY Asian applicants are systemically unjustified in the undergraduate admissions system? Not the PP just asking......

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

Just sour grapes from the PP.

+1

Not to mention, how much "transparency" does China have?? GTFOH.

It's really a huge shame that the US has less transparency than even China when it comes to college admission. seriously WTF

Once again, if China is so awesome, you are free to go there and experience this awesome system.

So you agree that US college admission system is less transparent than even China.

Do you agree with every parts of every US systems. Is that why you are here?

I'm not sure about you, but I think there are rooms to make improvements in many arears in this country.

I care about this country where my kids were born, so unlike you I don't just leave just because I you don't like something.

I like to see improvements and progress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

URMs can apply to whatever school they want - just like everyone else.

The colleges will decide, T25s included.

I don't hear people telling high stats URM to aim low to T100 to T200. I only hear people telling that to Asian Americans, "There are plenty of good colleges out there".

Yes, they can apply to wherever they want to, but apparently certain schools discriminate against only one group.

Ummm, because the majority of High stats URMs already have plenty in the 50-200 range on their list, including ones they know they can AFFORD. They apply to the T25 as a true reach and hope they get in---if not they are not complaining, they likely will just attend the local state u with 80% acceptance rate that gives them a full ride because they NEED affordable, and closer to home means minimal travel expenses. Majority of high stats URMs don't attend T25 schools. They don't feel entitled to that and don't complain if they don't get in or cannot afford it. They are realistic and not jaded by expecting to get everything they want in life---they learned a long time ago to work hard and keep working hard even if you don't get what you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"

Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.

But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well

No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, plenty of URM never even think of applying to T25 because it's so outside of their world when their parents do not have college degrees and are struggling just to keep the lights on and food on the table. So the group of "qualified URMs" is already much much smaller than everyone else at a T25. And many of them do end attending "lower ranked schools"---they attend the local state U that has a 60%+ acceptance rate and will be affordable and an easy drive from home.

However, it is Harvard/Stanford/any T25 choice as to how they build their freshman class. They see value in a URM or lower income student with only a 1500 and it's their right to admit them. I tend to agree that kid getting a 1500 means more than your 1%er getting a 1580. That kid will work harder and contribute more to the university over 4 years, and if Harvard thinks that, they will offer them admissions. Fact is outside of athletes, nobody with just a 1200 is getting admission to Harvard. So stop arguing that your kid with a 1580 is "better than a kid with a 1450+"---the difference is only in your head. Harvard has concluded that "1450ish is the cutoff" or whatever level and from there they look at other factors. And yes, I'd like my kids to attend colleges that are diverse. If you want an all asian college, you can apply in India or china and achieve just that. I want diversity on all levels.

+1

-1 no one stated that they wanted all Asian Americans in the college. And you are racist, implying that Asian Americans should "go back to their country".

Not racist---married to an Asian American, so I intimately understand both systems, having had a spouse go thru both sides. They much prefer the US system and are grateful our kids are not going thru the other system. Just sick of the few posters who keep wishing our system was "like china and India"---those systems exist and if that is what you want, then yes you are free to send your kids there. The fact you want to send them to a US school indicates that yes, our system overall is a better system. There are many faults with the China/India/Much of Europe way of tracking kids at an early age. I hope we never do that in this country---I don't think it's beneficial.

But complaining it's not fair your 1580 kid got rejected from highly rejective schools is ridiculous. Fact is most kids get rejected. But yes there are plenty of excellent schools out there, so focus on ones your kid can get into, and apply to the Reaches and reach for the stars, if it happens great, but if not, your kid is not forced to attend school #4001---many other excellent choices, some even better than the T25s you are so hell-bent on attending.

Ah, got it. So because the US system is better we need to celebrate racism. Thanks for your excellent opinion that is certainly valid since you are "married to an Asian American"

Nope--you would be the racist if you think it's always about race why someone does not get in. For every "asian with a 1580" who is rejected there are also white students, URM who are also rejected with similar scores---Why? Because those schools reject 95% of their applicants. It's lottery, and your SAT score buys you a ticket, after that the score does not matter---the rest of your application does. You have no clue what the teacher recs, ECs, volunteering, difficult life events a kid experienced goes into the holistic evaluation--and why the school accepts who they do. But fact is many many bright highly qualified kids gets rejected, along with yours. The sheer fact you think suing is a good thing in this situation tells me about your privilege and entitlement issues.

But yes, most schools do not aim to be 100% asian even in the engineering schools. Do you have issues with engineering programs who strive for a M/F balance, thus admitting more females each year to get there? I for one think the world is a better place that we now have more women in engineering/CS/STEM areas if that is what they want to major in. Since 50 years ago, women largely did not go to college, did you/do you find issues with universities working to ensure they have a good M/F balance. Similarly, I think it's great if we help ensure lower incomes students who have not had the same privileges as my kid, to get a great college experience. I can recognize my privilege and realize that a kid with a 3.7 and 1450 from an underprivileged life/environemnt might be more appealing than my 1% kiddo. I can feel happy that kid is getting the experience---I didn't think of suing when my kid didn't get into their T25 schools---I realized it was a lottery and had a long list of targets and safeties that they got into they loved as well

No feeling that you may have justifies systemic racism against Asian applicants but thank you for sharing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should sue and he should win. These kids work their tails off and then they are rejected because of race. It's outrageous.

Says who? Prove that. Show empirically that those schools chose someone else instead of this guy because of race. Berkeley? You seen the student population of Berkeley? You think Asians are being rejected from Berkeley because they are Asian? Are we serious right now?

Yeah, I know. I believe Berkeley is 50% Asian if you include internationals but the kid didn't get admitted because one of the 3% of blacks took his spot... Unfortunately, the likes of white supremacists are loving that minorities are being pitted against minorities (divide and conquer) despite the fact that the vast majority of spots at these schools are reserved for ALDCs. You look at the athletes on the rosters of these schools and they are disproportionately white (you will only see black faces on the basketball and football teams, and these the numbers are minuscule when you consider all the other sports like lacrosse, fencing, swimming, crew, soccer, baseball, squash, tennis, etc.). All these people have no problem cheering on their black athletes on the basketball/football teams (these are the only sports that matter) but if they are not bouncing a ball or scoring a touchdown, then to Hell with them....

Berkeley is more than 10% blacks after spending tens of millions on recruitment of black students and hiring black admissions Director.