Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of it is “legalized” cheating. I grew up in NY.

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying.

They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

Compared to me. I worked 20 hours a week in HS, had chores. SAT was a book I took out of library. Paid SAT and college fees my self no help. Most of childhood slept in living room as did not even a bedroom so no place to study.

But how do you compare GPAs and SATs scores. Could my Asian class mate done any better than me.

I got lucky and a college had a program for disadvantaged students with potential and I got on. I recall a fellow student was appalled I needed under a certain HS GPA and SAT score to qualify. He said unfair I got in by having a GPA under a random number. Ironically how is it fair he got in with a GPA over a random number? That guy ended up moving near me in my 40s, we both graduated college, got similar household incomes and similar jobs,

Basing admittance on a random number is silly. Holistic approach is better.

Holistic approach is good.
However what makes you think that you would be better in other extra areas such as ECs, Awards, Essay, Reasearch, etc than those
Asian kids.

Based on what you said, they are probably overall better on those areas as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

This still happens, including "Saturday school."

That’s called hard work. Not “legalized cheating.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The study, published earlier this month in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list — applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard.”

“The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

Harvard and others should consider cutting back on their number of sports (especially the ones mostly wealthy kids play). Many hardly generate interest on campus attendance wise. Ask Stanford about trying to do that though...

Revenue sports actually add to most schools' diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Anonymous wrote:A lot of it is “legalized” cheating. I grew up in NY.

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying.

They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

Compared to me. I worked 20 hours a week in HS, had chores. SAT was a book I took out of library. Paid SAT and college fees my self no help. Most of childhood slept in living room as did not even a bedroom so no place to study.

But how do you compare GPAs and SATs scores. Could my Asian class mate done any better than me.

I got lucky and a college had a program for disadvantaged students with potential and I got on. I recall a fellow student was appalled I needed under a certain HS GPA and SAT score to qualify. He said unfair I got in by having a GPA under a random number. Ironically how is it fair he got in with a GPA over a random number? That guy ended up moving near me in my 40s, we both graduated college, got similar household incomes and similar jobs,

Basing admittance on a random number is silly. Holistic approach is better.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The study, published earlier this month in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list — applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard.”

“The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

WTF is Dean's interest list.

Totally fukced up system

Rich people, famous people, politicians’ kids, etc. People they feel will increase the profile of the institution.
It’s silly but you are crazy if you think everyone gets into these institutions on the basis of “academic merit”. It is messed up, which is part of the reason I do not get the Ivy worship.

Anonymous wrote:All the categories that help or are likely to help Republicans (geographic diversity, viewpoint diversity, economic diversity, legacies) will be preserved.

This Supreme Court could not be more transparent in its quest to come out on the Republican side on every issue

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The study, published earlier this month in the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list — applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard.”

“The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

WTF is Dean's interest list.

Totally fukced up system

Rich people, famous people, politicians’ kids, etc. People they feel will increase the profile of the institution.
It’s silly but you are crazy if you think everyone gets into these institutions on the basis of “academic merit”. It is messed up, which is part of the reason I do not get the Ivy worship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is too long to read, but my opinion is that AA should be removed because it always makes the minorities "less than". I mean that they are always perceived to have been given an unfair leg up and the perception (often incorrect) is that they were only admitted because they were Black etc. Many of these kids are equally as smart as other kids and don not deserve any kind of asterix next to their name.
I think the playing field should be level so it is known that everyone there has earned their spot. Maybe AA was required years ago when there really was a different in opportunity but now there are so many qualified minorities and access to testing materials is free (Khan Academy) for anyone who wants it, so I don't think AA is required anymore. It is outdated in my opinion and I actually think it does more damage than good by being divisive.

So “the playing field should be level” when it comes to entering college — although the playing fields are far from “level” prior to that point. I guess that will work out quite well for those who’ve been privileged all along.

Bitter laugh. I’m not even sure where to begin here. “Divisive”? Is that “divisive” and “damaging” like the legacies of centuries of systematic discrimination? That kind of divisive? Or were you thinking of some OTHER type of “divisive” and “damage”?

Have Asians treated any better for the past like 100 years?

Anonymous wrote:A lot of it is “legalized” cheating. I grew up in NY.

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying.

They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

Compared to me. I worked 20 hours a week in HS, had chores. SAT was a book I took out of library. Paid SAT and college fees my self no help. Most of childhood slept in living room as did not even a bedroom so no place to study.

But how do you compare GPAs and SATs scores. Could my Asian class mate done any better than me.

I got lucky and a college had a program for disadvantaged students with potential and I got on. I recall a fellow student was appalled I needed under a certain HS GPA and SAT score to qualify. He said unfair I got in by having a GPA under a random number. Ironically how is it fair he got in with a GPA over a random number? That guy ended up moving near me in my 40s, we both graduated college, got similar household incomes and similar jobs,

Basing admittance on a random number is silly. Holistic approach is better.