Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. “Safeties” are not right below the top 20. Almost everyone needs to apply to at least one college that accepts more than it rejects. Being >75th percentile in GPA and SAT doesn’t guarantee you admission.

This is the truth nobody wants to believe.

20-50 is not a safety school.

75% acceptance is

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

DP. This is all super irrelevant. If whites and Asians have better scores then their being “overrepresented” is unimportant.

Sigh. You haven't figured out that scores are neither an indication of intelligence nor the major index for admissions. They are one data point among many. This is part of the problem -- people equate high scores with best applicant. It just isn't true and reflects a bias of cultures that put too much emphasis on scores. You really think the kid whose parents made them prep w/ Kumon and AOPS, bump up math, and prep for entrance exams to magnet schools, scored well on tests because they are "smarter" than a kid who did not have those resources and did well but didn't score as high? White and Asian kids have a higher rate of enrichment resources that URM kids. URM students have equal potential as other over represented groups, yet they are underrepresented on top campuses. Test scores are not a litmus test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

DP. This is all super irrelevant. If whites and Asians have better scores then their being “overrepresented” is unimportant.

Sigh. You haven't figured out that scores are neither an indication of intelligence nor the major index for admissions. They are one data point among many. This is part of the problem -- people equate high scores with best applicant. It just isn't true and reflects a bias of cultures that put too much emphasis on scores. You really think the kid whose parents made them prep w/ Kumon and AOPS, bump up math, and prep for entrance exams to magnet schools, scored well on tests because they are "smarter" than a kid who did not have those resources and did well but didn't score as high? White and Asian kids have a higher rate of enrichment resources that URM kids. URM students have equal potential as other over represented groups, yet they are underrepresented on top campuses. Test scores are not a litmus test.

This logic has been thrown out with selective schools increasingly requiring standardized tests. These selective schools have cited studies that show test scores are the best indicator of college performance. And excluding test scores was detrimental to the most deserving URMs. All of this has been in the news. But it doesn’t stop entitlement hogs like the PP from propagating racist tropes against Asian and White parents who value education. Asian and white kids are not smarter but are better prepared for college admissions. Parents like the PP with cavalier attitudes to education are not prepared and console themselves and their kids by perpetuating asinine accusations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

DP. This is all super irrelevant. If whites and Asians have better scores then their being “overrepresented” is unimportant.

Sigh. You haven't figured out that scores are neither an indication of intelligence nor the major index for admissions. They are one data point among many. This is part of the problem -- people equate high scores with best applicant. It just isn't true and reflects a bias of cultures that put too much emphasis on scores. You really think the kid whose parents made them prep w/ Kumon and AOPS, bump up math, and prep for entrance exams to magnet schools, scored well on tests because they are "smarter" than a kid who did not have those resources and did well but didn't score as high? White and Asian kids have a higher rate of enrichment resources that URM kids. URM students have equal potential as other over represented groups, yet they are underrepresented on top campuses. Test scores are not a litmus test.

Anonymous wrote:My friend’s high stats daughter who is also a double legacy at HYPS was deferred from that college in ED and later rejected. She is going to UVA out of state, which was a safety in her case. Top grades from high rigor courses at a top school. Good ECs. She probably would have gotten into a different Ivy or a Top 10-15 school had she chosen her ED differently.

Anonymous wrote:My friend’s high stats daughter who is also a double legacy at HYPS was deferred from that college in ED and later rejected. She is going to UVA out of state, which was a safety in her case. Top grades from high rigor courses at a top school. Good ECs. She probably would have gotten into a different Ivy or a Top 10-15 school had she chosen her ED differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

DP. This is all super irrelevant. If whites and Asians have better scores then their being “overrepresented” is unimportant.

Sigh. You haven't figured out that scores are neither an indication of intelligence nor the major index for admissions. They are one data point among many. This is part of the problem -- people equate high scores with best applicant. It just isn't true and reflects a bias of cultures that put too much emphasis on scores. You really think the kid whose parents made them prep w/ Kumon and AOPS, bump up math, and prep for entrance exams to magnet schools, scored well on tests because they are "smarter" than a kid who did not have those resources and did well but didn't score as high? White and Asian kids have a higher rate of enrichment resources that URM kids. URM students have equal potential as other over represented groups, yet they are underrepresented on top campuses. Test scores are not a litmus test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

DP. This is all super irrelevant. If whites and Asians have better scores then their being “overrepresented” is unimportant.

Sigh. You haven't figured out that scores are neither an indication of intelligence nor the major index for admissions. They are one data point among many. This is part of the problem -- people equate high scores with best applicant. It just isn't true and reflects a bias of cultures that put too much emphasis on scores. You really think the kid whose parents made them prep w/ Kumon and AOPS, bump up math, and prep for entrance exams to magnet schools, scored well on tests because they are "smarter" than a kid who did not have those resources and did well but didn't score as high? White and Asian kids have a higher rate of enrichment resources that URM kids. URM students have equal potential as other over represented groups, yet they are underrepresented on top campuses. Test scores are not a litmus test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

DP. This is all super irrelevant. If whites and Asians have better scores then their being “overrepresented” is unimportant.

Sigh. You haven't figured out that scores are neither an indication of intelligence nor the major index for admissions. They are one data point among many. This is part of the problem -- people equate high scores with best applicant. It just isn't true and reflects a bias of cultures that put too much emphasis on scores. You really think the kid whose parents made them prep w/ Kumon and AOPS, bump up math, and prep for entrance exams to magnet schools, scored well on tests because they are "smarter" than a kid who did not have those resources and did well but didn't score as high? White and Asian kids have a higher rate of enrichment resources that URM kids. URM students have equal potential as other over represented groups, yet they are underrepresented on top campuses. Test scores are not a litmus test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

DP. This is all super irrelevant. If whites and Asians have better scores then their being “overrepresented” is unimportant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

But they are not from MoCo, DC, or Fairfax. Those are minority mining districts (term I learned working in admissions).

Maybe they get a few minority students from MoCo, but the majority are Asian and white. Look at the admits pages for tge various schools, especially Ws. Blair/Poolesville are also mostly Asian and white in T20 admits. So, how are T20s "mining" MoCo for URM admits if most of the students admitted are Asian and white?

Same could be said for Fairfax and DC. The kids I know from Walls at T5? White. How many ftom Langley? Lots, and white/Asian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

But they are not from MoCo, DC, or Fairfax. Those are minority mining districts (term I learned working in admissions).

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.