Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 07:18     Subject: Re:"Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.


Everyone on DCUM who whines about legacies athletes and rich kids getting in “without merit” would never complain about URMs getting in without merit.


URM’s don’t get in without merit you just don’t like the measuring stick used.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 07:12     Subject: "Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP -- I'm pretty sure we're not at the same school, but I know what school you're at and can even figure out some of the students you're referring to (for better or worse) because the DC-private school world is pretty small. At our DC private something similar is happening. There are a few stark examples of big money/name recognition kids getting into Ivies when their classmates with far better grades/scores, much more rigorous courseloads, and better ECs are not getting in. It's depressing, but it's a lesson for our kids about how unfair this world of ours is.


Your kids are lucky this world is so unfair. If it was fair, I'm guessing they'd have a whole lot less than they do right now. I don't like the state of college admissions but privileged families complaining about life being unfair is lacking in perspective.


Exactly. Life is so unfair when it’s stacked in my favor only 98% of the time.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 07:09     Subject: Re:"Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:College is not a reward for good little boys and girls?

College is a community. College is also educating a society.

Colleges choose students based on who can make their community more full (big names/athletes/artists). They also choose people they think can contribute to society in some way (like the parkland kids, or the smartest kid in some unknown town whose gpa/Sat might be less than yours but it’s the highest there )

It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.


This sounds really sweet until you realize that the unifying principle is “building the class that best serves the selfish interests of our institution.” If you think Harvard regarded the Parkland kid as anything more than a bauble you’ve got your head in the sand.


What you are saying that colleges select the applicants they find most attractive for their institution? Wow you really blew the lid off that conspiracy.


More people should have a problem with tax-exempt organizations operating solely for their own self-interest. Harvard has a $30 billion endowment and hasn’t paid a dime in taxes on it since 1636.


Cool. Now do churches.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 07:08     Subject: Re:"Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:When oh when have elite college admissions ever been a meritocracy?


A brief period, more or less, from 1965 to 1998, I’d say. Starting from when the Ivy League opened up. It ended when the glut of millenials showed up and the colleges realized that so long as demand outstripped supply they could play whatever stupid games they wanted with admissions and still keep their selectivity scores up.


Pish posh. Do you know how many legacies, athletes and rich kids were at elite colleges those days? I guess you think it was a meritocracy only because it was still mostly white.


I’m the PP. I’m not naive about that era. Just that acceptance on a pure “meritocratic” application was a viable strategy (not a guarantee, but a reasonable strategy) for those who didn’t have their name on the building, famous parents, recruited athlete, etc. Today it’s a crapshoot. You can’t even aim low for safeties because of “yield protections”.


You’re overly alarmist. Plenty of students still get in on merit. It’s just that some of them happen to be brown so you assume they did not.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 07:03     Subject: Re:"Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:When oh when have elite college admissions ever been a meritocracy?


A brief period, more or less, from 1965 to 1998, I’d say. Starting from when the Ivy League opened up. It ended when the glut of millenials showed up and the colleges realized that so long as demand outstripped supply they could play whatever stupid games they wanted with admissions and still keep their selectivity scores up.


Pish posh. Do you know how many legacies, athletes and rich kids were at elite colleges those days? I guess you think it was a meritocracy only because it was still mostly white.



Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 06:41     Subject: "Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?


Might be same school but last week the CCO at our school put it in writing that there is no competitive advantage in college admissions in attending the school. So you essentially pay a huge amount of money, get worse grades, and get no advantage now in the eye of colleges who used to at least recognize that the level of work done is high at these schools.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 06:07     Subject: Re:"Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:College is not a reward for good little boys and girls?

College is a community. College is also educating a society.

Colleges choose students based on who can make their community more full (big names/athletes/artists). They also choose people they think can contribute to society in some way (like the parkland kids, or the smartest kid in some unknown town whose gpa/Sat might be less than yours but it’s the highest there )

It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.


This sounds really sweet until you realize that the unifying principle is “building the class that best serves the selfish interests of our institution.” If you think Harvard regarded the Parkland kid as anything more than a bauble you’ve got your head in the sand.


What you are saying that colleges select the applicants they find most attractive for their institution? Wow you really blew the lid off that conspiracy.


More people should have a problem with tax-exempt organizations operating solely for their own self-interest. Harvard has a $30 billion endowment and hasn’t paid a dime in taxes on it since 1636.


Aren’t they now paying tax on their endowment per the tax instituted by the Republicans a few years ago?
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 00:34     Subject: "Not a Meritocracy"
OP - this process is crazy hard and we all want our kids to get what they think they have worked for. It feels like our kids did everything right and there is unfairness to it all. I empathize with your frustration, I think this is a going to be a rough few weeks.

That said, the idea that it was a meritocracy before is preposterous. You are doing the best you can to advocate for and support your student. Good for you. You need to understand that where your student goes is not who they will be. Good luck.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2023 00:15     Subject: "Not a Meritocracy"
Going test optional and SC outlawing affirmative action is going to be a massive boon to mediocre white kids from rich legacy families.

But that was always the intention by these efforts.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2023 23:43     Subject: "Not a Meritocracy"
I imagine it's a fill-a-need-ocracy. I.e., sport need, big legacy donor parents need, celebrity/politics, international students, diversity, and for remaining slots, academic merit.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2023 23:32     Subject: Re:"Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:When oh when have elite college admissions ever been a meritocracy?


A brief period, more or less, from 1965 to 1998, I’d say. Starting from when the Ivy League opened up. It ended when the glut of millenials showed up and the colleges realized that so long as demand outstripped supply they could play whatever stupid games they wanted with admissions and still keep their selectivity scores up.


Pish posh. Do you know how many legacies, athletes and rich kids were at elite colleges those days? I guess you think it was a meritocracy only because it was still mostly white.



Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Athletes are rich kids. Who do you think is served by the youth sports industrial complex?
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2023 23:30     Subject: Re:"Not a Meritocracy"
Let's just set it all up based on a flawed test and we'll develop and even larger and more lucrative test prep system like Korea! Objective merit, right?
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2023 23:28     Subject: Re:"Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:When oh when have elite college admissions ever been a meritocracy?


A brief period, more or less, from 1965 to 1998, I’d say. Starting from when the Ivy League opened up. It ended when the glut of millenials showed up and the colleges realized that so long as demand outstripped supply they could play whatever stupid games they wanted with admissions and still keep their selectivity scores up.


Pish posh. Do you know how many legacies, athletes and rich kids were at elite colleges those days? I guess you think it was a meritocracy only because it was still mostly white.



Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2023 23:22     Subject: "Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:What did you think private school tuition was for, OP? To buy college admissions and other advantages. Your child will benefit as well, even if not to the same extent. I know two families with sons who got admitted to SLACs this year PURELY due to efforts by their private schools (plus being full pay). Yes this makes me a bit bitter as someone whose child will never be that privileged, but at the end of the day, it's also a little pathetic for those kids.


I’m not OP but the school OP is from would not be making any personal efforts for SLAC admittance like the two families you refer to. Not unless they are VIP. I do know other school are far more engaged at going to vat for kids.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2023 23:18     Subject: "Not a Meritocracy"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?


Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.


Why would you expect a school that costs so much that only rich people can afford it to be interested in not-rich people?

This is like saying "Armani New York Fifth Avenue is shockingly disinterested in people who shop at Kohl's".


Because it’s a SCHOOL and I’d like their priority to be the well being of the students. But sadly, it’s really just their own profile they seem to care about. They want to be desired by all, especially the rich… for prestige but do little of substance for the HS kids.