Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

And how about the white men who FOR GENERATIONS didn't have to check a box, but were given entrees to education and careers by virtue of their gender, race and the good old boy network? Does that grate you?

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

How does she gripe about her Ivy ed?

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

I think we have all benefited from having these two women gain the education that has enabled them to become national leaders. OTOH, how do we as a nation benefit when a legacy applicant checks the box?

Sotomayor and Obama were affirmative action babies. They benefitted from being in the right generation who first benefitted from schools wanting to help the less privileged. It grates me that Mrs. Obama gripes about her Ivy education at Princeton and Harvard Law. She would have never gotten into either school if she were white. She didn't have the grades for Princeton. She got to "check the box".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For instance Sonia Sotomayor and Michelle Obama to name two! They didn't come into Princeton with strong academic backgrounds but clearly had enormous potential.
And to the PP who thinks that "white males" are the ones that are being disadvantaged by attempts to have a more heterogenous class, totally wrong, male applicants have an advantage at all the top schools, because if used grades and scores alone (particularly grades), and even taking into account extracurriculars, they would be admitting probably 70% female applicants, so they specifically need to work hard to have a class more or less balanced by sex, except at places that are 100% technical/engineering ie MIT

Just curious, what makes you think they did not have strong academic backgrounds prior to college entrance? Is this published somewhere? I was under the impression that MO attended a private highschool on partial scholarship.

I'm not the PP you're quoting, but Sotomayor's new book includes extensive discussion of her experience entering Princeton at a significant disadvantage due to her poor academic preparation. With great determination she pulled herself up by her bootstraps, graduated as a member of Phi Beta Kappa and was awarded the Pyne Prize, Princeton's highest undergraduate honor.

Anonymous wrote:For instance Sonia Sotomayor and Michelle Obama to name two! They didn't come into Princeton with strong academic backgrounds but clearly had enormous potential.
And to the PP who thinks that "white males" are the ones that are being disadvantaged by attempts to have a more heterogenous class, totally wrong, male applicants have an advantage at all the top schools, because if used grades and scores alone (particularly grades), and even taking into account extracurriculars, they would be admitting probably 70% female applicants, so they specifically need to work hard to have a class more or less balanced by sex, except at places that are 100% technical/engineering ie MIT

Just curious, what makes you think they did not have strong academic backgrounds prior to college entrance? Is this published somewhere? I was under the impression that MO attended a private highschool on partial scholarship.

For instance Sonia Sotomayor and Michelle Obama to name two! They didn't come into Princeton with strong academic backgrounds but clearly had enormous potential.
And to the PP who thinks that "white males" are the ones that are being disadvantaged by attempts to have a more heterogenous class, totally wrong, male applicants have an advantage at all the top schools, because if used grades and scores alone (particularly grades), and even taking into account extracurriculars, they would be admitting probably 70% female applicants, so they specifically need to work hard to have a class more or less balanced by sex, except at places that are 100% technical/engineering ie MIT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it is time to end all of this nonsense and let the best applicant have the spot without regard to gender, race, etc.


You know that that would disadvantage white boys, right? That's why it won't happen. Affirmative Action lives, just not it the way that most people think.

I don't care who it "helps". I think think the most qualified applicant should get the spot.

What does that even mean? Should Harvard just take valedictorians with perfect SATs? Because they could. But they don't. Harvard, and every school, wants a class full of successful achievers in all fields. As long as your SATs are north of 2200, the Ivies will take a look. I can't imagine anything worse than a class full of nerds with 2400 SAT scores, tiger moms, good grades, and nothing else.

I agree. Colleges seek a diversity of kids so they can have a diversity of points of view. A college might not get that budding composer or talented artist if they only take SATs of 2400. If you go to school with a whole bunch of nerds who look exactly like you, it's going to be a pretty uninstructive four years.

I agree. Admissions decisions are also in many ways purely a business decision. Picking kids who will succeed in a variety of ways, burnishing the reputation of the school, and being able to give back in monetary ways, is almost what it comes down to. So yes, SAT scores help schools distinguish between the masses of applicants. But a school isn't necessarily interested in having a class made up purely of engineers, for instance. That's why looking at sports (for leadership skills) and other skills (music, drama, newspaper, and other extra curriculars as signs of career interests beyond the academic) and yes, even race/socio-economic status are considered. I'm vehemently anti-affirmative action. But I get that considering race/socio-economic status is not only good for the rest of the student body, but from a pure business decision, makes sense (a disadvantaged youth granted the benefit of a great education who does well afterwards will bring exponentially greater attention to the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it is time to end all of this nonsense and let the best applicant have the spot without regard to gender, race, etc.


You know that that would disadvantage white boys, right? That's why it won't happen. Affirmative Action lives, just not it the way that most people think.

I don't care who it "helps". I think think the most qualified applicant should get the spot.

What does that even mean? Should Harvard just take valedictorians with perfect SATs? Because they could. But they don't. Harvard, and every school, wants a class full of successful achievers in all fields. As long as your SATs are north of 2200, the Ivies will take a look. I can't imagine anything worse than a class full of nerds with 2400 SAT scores, tiger moms, good grades, and nothing else.

I agree. Colleges seek a diversity of kids so they can have a diversity of points of view. A college might not get that budding composer or talented artist if they only take SATs of 2400. If you go to school with a whole bunch of nerds who look exactly like you, it's going to be a pretty uninstructive four years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IDK, JMU is nearly 70% female. That fact alone is enough to keep both my DD and DS away. I think it's reasonable for colleges to seek some balance when selecting your incoming class.

Not sure where you came up with that number, but everything I found on their website said 60% female and 40% male, which is how it has been for years.

A google search of "jmu male female ration" reveals
#1: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=James%20Madison%20University&defid=2993169 and
#2: http://colleges.findthebest.com/q/4382/1270/What-is-the-male-to-female-ratio-at-James-Madison-University-JMU-in-Harrisonburg-Virginia which states 65% female; 35% male. And just anecdotally everyone I know with any connection to JMU says they tilt those stats to look more male than it is (not scientific, I know). But when we went on a tour one Saturday at 10am 2 years ago, we did not pass a male student for a full 90 minutes (DD was counting).

Anonymous wrote:IDK, JMU is nearly 70% female. That fact alone is enough to keep both my DD and DS away. I think it's reasonable for colleges to seek some balance when selecting your incoming class.

Not sure where you came up with that number, but everything I found on their website said 60% female and 40% male, which is how it has been for years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think it is time to end all of this nonsense and let the best applicant have the spot without regard to gender, race, etc.


You know that that would disadvantage white boys, right? That's why it won't happen. Affirmative Action lives, just not it the way that most people think.

I don't care who it "helps". I think think the most qualified applicant should get the spot.

What does that even mean? Should Harvard just take valedictorians with perfect SATs? Because they could. But they don't. Harvard, and every school, wants a class full of successful achievers in all fields. As long as your SATs are north of 2200, the Ivies will take a look. I can't imagine anything worse than a class full of nerds with 2400 SAT scores, tiger moms, good grades, and nothing else.

I was just writing to explain why the person shouldn't be shocked that their sons were denied at MIT ... I wasn't offering my opinion. I have a girl so while I feel badly for boys trying to get into MIT ... I feel worse for girls trying to get in almost anywhere else since there are many more qualified girls applying to colleges now than boys. My girl did just fine -- Ivy as a recruit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT is probably one of the last few universities where it is harder for boys to get in than girls. Most universities have to really strive to find enough boys on par with girls nowadays, but MIT is one where it still has more guys applying. So, it's going to be really hard for a normal white boy to be accepted...and if he's Asian...forget it! AA boys would have a very great chance.

But that's to make up for their past gender discrimination, right?

My DD didn't want a school that was more than 60% female. So it is an issue the schools need to consider. When you start looking at the stats, especially for the liberal arts colleges, about 60-65% of the applicants are girls. Very few these days are 50/50, but even it they keep it to 55/45 it means that 65% of the applicants are applying for 55% of the spots. Engineering programs help to balance the gender ratios. It's a good time to be a male college applicant of any race.

IDK, JMU is nearly 70% female. That fact alone is enough to keep both my DD and DS away. I think it's reasonable for colleges to seek some balance when selecting your incoming class.