Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

OP said 20 years ago, not 50.

What elite colleges were not accepting women 20 years ago?

Lol accepting. Is that your myopic version of how admissions works?

How many women's sports were highly recruited.
Were girls represented in AP classes like boys?
Did college target girls for marketing?

Columbia wasn't even coed in 1980, Darmouth had banner better dead than coed in 1970. You think colleges were completely integrated by 2000. Are you daft?

What about women professors, or women in admissions?

Many schools only went coed because their lost top applicants to coed schools. They didn't even go coed to get top women applicant they went coed so their top applicants had somebody to bang.

You think a professor/admission officer in 2000 that was there for 20 years treated women equally. Oh wow! You are obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:International students add diversity and expose American kids to other points of view, something which is desperately needed today. That said, I am a strong believer that public universities should prioritize in state students above all others.

International students are usually wealthier and more sheltered than the richest American kids. Think having maids and live-in staff.

Anonymous wrote:International students add diversity and expose American kids to other points of view, something which is desperately needed today. That said, I am a strong believer that public universities should prioritize in state students above all others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

Men didn’t have to compete with anyone in 1996? In 2003? What?

Yes, hon.

Lol no. Every elite U.S. school accepted women in that time period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

But your only college professor, so really not top if the food chain. You literally haven’t left college yet.

You’re proving the professor’s point.

Not really if I went to Harvard in 1996.

International students add diversity and expose American kids to other points of view, something which is desperately needed today. That said, I am a strong believer that public universities should prioritize in state students above all others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

Men didn’t have to compete with anyone in 1996? In 2003? What?

Yes, hon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100 percent agree. Today it’s just a lottery at the T30 or so unless your child is hooked.

That's not completely true. My kid just got in ED with no hooks (as far as I understand hooks), from a public school in DC. Maybe he was a lottery pick?

Hooks include legacy, first gen, pell eligible, recruited athlete, underrepresented minority,

And yes, even under lottery admissions, some unhooked kids get in. They just tend to look identical, stats wise, to a number of unhooked kids that are rejected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget international recruitment for athletics.

I am generally opposed to international students attending elite U.S. universities, period.

Agree, I feel like admissions would be much more reasonable if international students were limited to 5 percent of class or less (instead of 15 percent plus currently). At most schools, international students are there mostly because they are full pay. Not sure why this isn’t discussed more.

Anonymous wrote:100 percent agree. Today it’s just a lottery at the T30 or so unless your child is hooked.

That's not completely true. My kid just got in ED with no hooks (as far as I understand hooks), from a public school in DC. Maybe he was a lottery pick?

I am old enough to remember how, during the period OP describes, the same was said about the previous 20 years... not to mention the 20 before that.

I was a scholarship student at an elite New England prep school. My year around 20 students from the school went to Harvard, while now 5 would be considered a good year. Overall, across the country, the trend in the last 40 years has been to to accept increasing numbers of public school students, rather than private.

I am a university professor and agree with my colleague PP - at least in the humanities. Writing skills have especially plummeted. I don't have enough knowledge to discuss the sciences, but I will say that overall academic expectations tend to be lower. I believe that students, especially at high achieving colleges, feel pressure to be involved in many extra curriculars. Add to that time spent on phones and social media and students seem to spend less and less time on academics. I am often surprised by how comfortable students are offering extracurriculars as an excuse for later papers. Priorities have changed.

That said, I think the overall move to accept more public school students is a very good thing for too many reasons to list. Correlation not being causation, I am definitely NOT arguing for a return to more prep school acceptance. The quality of student at those schools has declined even more than at colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Shotgunning” makes it far MORE meritocratic GTFO

Not at all.

It means the most qualified kids, rather than the most savvy kids, get the admissions. It’s a far more efficient market, in favor of merit rather than idiosyncratic factors.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

You are conflating smarter with higher achieving.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget international recruitment for athletics.

I am generally opposed to international students attending elite U.S. universities, period.

Anonymous wrote:“Shotgunning” makes it far MORE meritocratic GTFO

Not at all.