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

This has been the case for quite a while – it’s just such a polluted environment. Across all students, a small percentage are there PURELY on merit.

+1 Pin this article.

It's quite shameful that those "enlightened" institutions are still using a criteria that is rooted in racism. IMO, this is worse than affirmative action because it's an attempt to "keep it all in the family". The excuse that they use legacy as a form of fundraising in order to pay for lower income students to go to those schools is also bunk. Those schools have so much money in endowment that they could let everyone go there for free for years. They could also lower the cost so that so many students don't need the FA. But, nope, they pretend that legacy is important because it allows them to let in the poor kids.

Anonymous wrote:

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."

And when white UMC parents do the same thing, it's called "enrichment"

I’m a white UMC parent of one in high school and one in middle school. I don’t know a single white UMC kid who has gone to Saturday School or done any form of academic enrichment other than SAT or ACT prep. Weekends are generally for sports, hanging out with friends and going on trips with family.

_________________________________
You are a white UMC family that prioritizes athletics and family time, what is wrong with Asians focusing on education. BTW, now most UMC Asian families are also focused on athletics or other EC in addition to academics because they know they have to be better that all other races to get into the colleges of their choice. In NYC, it is many low income Asian families who attend cram schools to get out of poverty. I don't see anything wrong with it. My parents sacrificed a lot to send me to a top college, I hold them in the highest regard for affording me all the opportunities. Even today despite being modestly off, my parents never ask me for money and are there for childcare at any time. I have never cried about lost childhood or filling out bubbles - I am just grateful for their dedication. Today I can send me kids to private schools only because they sacrificed for me. My children have the luxury of exploring different EC because money is no longer a constraint. They do not need to go to cram schools because my husband and I are well educated and provide a home environment which is already enriched.

Get rid of non-revenue sports and legacy - we will see how many UMC white families will focus on those sports once they no longer factor into admissions.

Also, Asians score higher on every measure, including EC, interview and recommendations when compared to whites. The only place they score lower is in "personality" which is a Harvard made up section by admissions officer who has never even met the kid. See the link below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yjbefg/oc_how_harvard_admissions_rates_asian_american/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

No that is not "hard work". Only "certain people" think of it that way. Colleges want to find unicorns with the SAT not somebody that studied and studied and studied for it.

However colleges may see it, it is still hard work and dedication.

I don't see it as hard work. I see working as a janitor in the morning before school starts, or working all night at a restaurant, or doing construction, caring for you 3 siblings and your sick mother ... hard work.

Reading a book and filling in little, tiny bubbles is not hard work. It does indicate somebody that is unable to speak for themselves, does not follow their passion and are afraid of their parents.

Where did you get 'afraid of their parents' part from?????

Who is making them sit for hours and hours filling little bubbles and learning how to take tests? Is it a child that just loves to learn how to take tests? Is that a new passion I'm unaware of? Are there test taking clubs in retirement homes now to bond and relax?

My Asian kids are far from it. they are more on the creative side however,
most of those kids are ambitious, dedicated, endure, and want to be a brain doctor, NASA engineer, etc.

Kind of like football players in HS. They do all kinds of extra training after school even in Weekends. Football is really not a fun sport to play but you get satisfaction and a sense of achievement.

If you are a parent, you should know, there's so much you can do to your kids.

What does any of this have to do with test prep?

Anonymous wrote:

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

You think Ivy League legacies are primarily the children of Republicans? LOL.

DP.. well, we know that there are a few famous Rs who have gone to ivies, so it's not a stretch to think there are more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.
Yes they are.

they who?

People who point to a person's GPA and Test and say they don't belong over other students that have higher SAT and GPA.

Oh no, they also have excellent ECs, Awards, Essaasy, etc., so they don't have to say SAT and GPA only.
So that's the problem. You are mistaken.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

Except that there was never such thing as 'personality tests'


Also we have clear explanation for low SAT.
They are not prepared well and bomb the test.

And all the biased questions that are easier for certain people

Certain people = studied hard and prepaRared

Certain people = bad personalities

Racists and racist system will be judged by the Supreme Court.

By the hyperpartisan, invalid SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

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."

And when white UMC parents do the same thing, it's called "enrichment"

I’m a white UMC parent of one in high school and one in middle school. I don’t know a single white UMC kid who has gone to Saturday School or done any form of academic enrichment other than SAT or ACT prep. Weekends are generally for sports, hanging out with friends and going on trips with family.

LOL Bethesda parent here who totally disagrees. Plenty of tutors etc. See these requests on list serves and parent groups, and among my own friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

No that is not "hard work". Only "certain people" think of it that way. Colleges want to find unicorns with the SAT not somebody that studied and studied and studied for it.

However colleges may see it, it is still hard work and dedication.

I don't see it as hard work. I see working as a janitor in the morning before school starts, or working all night at a restaurant, or doing construction, caring for you 3 siblings and your sick mother ... hard work.

Reading a book and filling in little, tiny bubbles is not hard work. It does indicate somebody that is unable to speak for themselves, does not follow their passion and are afraid of their parents.

Where did you get 'afraid of their parents' part from?????

Who is making them sit for hours and hours filling little bubbles and learning how to take tests? Is it a child that just loves to learn how to take tests? Is that a new passion I'm unaware of? Are there test taking clubs in retirement homes now to bond and relax?

My Asian kids are far from it. they are more on the creative side however,
most of those kids are ambitious, dedicated, endure, and want to be a brain doctor, NASA engineer, etc.

Kind of like football players in HS. They do all kinds of extra training after school even in Weekends. Football is really not a fun sport to play but you get satisfaction and a sense of achievement.

If you are a parent, you should know, there's so much you can do to your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

No that is not "hard work". Only "certain people" think of it that way. Colleges want to find unicorns with the SAT not somebody that studied and studied and studied for it.

However colleges may see it, it is still hard work and dedication.

I don't see it as hard work. I see working as a janitor in the morning before school starts, or working all night at a restaurant, or doing construction, caring for you 3 siblings and your sick mother ... hard work.

Reading a book and filling in little, tiny bubbles is not hard work. It does indicate somebody that is unable to speak for themselves, does not follow their passion and are afraid of their parents.

Students main job is studying and learning.
It's certainly hard work students

No. Student's main job is not studying, learning yes. But not studying. You can't decide there is 1 way for all children in the whole united states to spend their time. Studying is one way to spend your time, it's not "hard" ... it's boring, yes, but not hard.

Some students that only study get in great schools but it's not the majority because it's not really that important.

We are not talking about all kids being required to do anything. This is a teeny slice of students who are interested in going to Harvard. It's not widely applicable tlin any sense, regardless of what metrics we are talking about.

In the same way that athletic recruits don't set the standard for every American's exercise routine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.
Yes they are.

they who?

People who point to a person's GPA and Test and say they don't belong over other students that have higher SAT and GPA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.
Yes they are.

they who?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And if one of the goals is to have a racially/economically/skills/geographic diverse cohort?

They can go competely privatge, pay all the taxes, no aid from governemnts.
Set whatever goal they want, and do whatever.

Schools like Harvard might be capable of that, so go for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

No that is not "hard work". Only "certain people" think of it that way. Colleges want to find unicorns with the SAT not somebody that studied and studied and studied for it.

However colleges may see it, it is still hard work and dedication.

I don't see it as hard work. I see working as a janitor in the morning before school starts, or working all night at a restaurant, or doing construction, caring for you 3 siblings and your sick mother ... hard work.

Reading a book and filling in little, tiny bubbles is not hard work. It does indicate somebody that is unable to speak for themselves, does not follow their passion and are afraid of their parents.

Students main job is studying and learning.
It's certainly hard work students

No. Student's main job is not studying, learning yes. But not studying. You can't decide there is 1 way for all children in the whole united states to spend their time. Studying is one way to spend your time, it's not "hard" ... it's boring, yes, but not hard.

Some students that only study get in great schools but it's not the majority because it's not really that important.

Anonymous wrote:

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."

And when white UMC parents do the same thing, it's called "enrichment"

I’m a white UMC parent of one in high school and one in middle school. I don’t know a single white UMC kid who has gone to Saturday School or done any form of academic enrichment other than SAT or ACT prep. Weekends are generally for sports, hanging out with friends and going on trips with family.

Well you don't know us I guess.