Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1) Is being a child of a tiger mom a hook?
2) Is being advanced in math a hook? Ie, graduate high school having taken the highest math class.

1) Oh if it were there would be a lot less activity here
2) "Advanced in math" as in winning contests, yes, as in "graduate high school having taken the highest math class" no, as there will be tens of thousands of other kids who have done so also.

So, if graduating high school with the highest math class is not uncommon, are those who take the 'regular' math track not even considered for an elite school?

It certainly makes it harder, but that depends on the candidate of course, and what else they excel in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1) Is being a child of a tiger mom a hook?
2) Is being advanced in math a hook? Ie, graduate high school having taken the highest math class.

1) Oh if it were there would be a lot less activity here
2) "Advanced in math" as in winning contests, yes, as in "graduate high school having taken the highest math class" no, as there will be tens of thousands of other kids who have done so also.

So, if graduating high school with the highest math class is not uncommon, are those who take the 'regular' math track not even considered for an elite school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1) Is being a child of a tiger mom a hook?
2) Is being advanced in math a hook? Ie, graduate high school having taken the highest math class.

1) Oh if it were there would be a lot less activity here
2) "Advanced in math" as in winning contests, yes, as in "graduate high school having taken the highest math class" no, as there will be tens of thousands of other kids who have done so also.

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1) Is being a child of a tiger mom a hook?
2) Is being advanced in math a hook? Ie, graduate high school having taken the highest math class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If these colleges persist in chasing the “social media famous,” they’re only going to succeed in lowering their own stock.

How is this the end of the world? They’ve chased money, legacy, athletics for years and it hasn’t lowered the stock. This is not going to have any impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“First Gen” He’s just a buzz word that allows colleges to double up on their URM admits without having to mention race again

+ 1. Double up or double count, whatever serves their purposes via us nrw rankings.

Considering plenty of first gen students are white this seems to be just another example of whites pretending they are the actual victim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought you all were against legacy admissions (3rd Gen in this case)?

This discussion is about whether Harvard and Yale made a mistake in admitting them holistically on non-academic criteria. The answer is no, they advance the cause and profile of those colleges in a way that benefits them immensely. Certainly more than some anonymous smart kid with 200 more SAT points.

Anonymous wrote:Funny that you think Yale had anything to do with his success. He is a classic case of someone whose background and connections would have made him successful in life whether or not he had gone to Yale. A first gen college student would have benefitted more from that spot.

Another entire bunch of points no one is arguing. The question is whether Yale made a mistake in admitting him. The answer is no.

Anonymous wrote:Are Hogg and Thunberg “successful activists?”

Yes. Extremely. Thunberg was Time's person of the year for god's sake. Get with the program.

And for the record this has nothing to do with agreeing with their politics and I think GWB was a terrible president. The question is was Yale right to accept him, and the answer is absolutely, yes, as he became a US president.

So, the question isn’t what Yale can do for these students, but rather what the students can do for Yale? This argues in favor of going back to the Old Boys’ Network model that the Ivy League operated under for most of its existence. Just admit the children of the great and the good, as they are most likely to achieve prominence themselves. Got it.

I’m not even going to bother to address the joke that is Time’s “Person of the Year” award. Particularly for Thunberg. She’s a child that happens to have a good PR team behind her. She has actually made zero difference with regard to the issues she claims to care about. Same with Hogg.

If these colleges persist in chasing the “social media famous,” they’re only going to succeed in lowering their own stock.

Anonymous wrote:So, the question isn’t what Yale can do for these students, but rather what the students can do for Yale?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought you all were against legacy admissions (3rd Gen in this case)?

This discussion is about whether Harvard and Yale made a mistake in admitting them holistically on non-academic criteria. The answer is no, they advance the cause and profile of those colleges in a way that benefits them immensely. Certainly more than some anonymous smart kid with 200 more SAT points.

Anonymous wrote:Funny that you think Yale had anything to do with his success. He is a classic case of someone whose background and connections would have made him successful in life whether or not he had gone to Yale. A first gen college student would have benefitted more from that spot.

Another entire bunch of points no one is arguing. The question is whether Yale made a mistake in admitting him. The answer is no.

Anonymous wrote:Are Hogg and Thunberg “successful activists?”

Yes. Extremely. Thunberg was Time's person of the year for god's sake. Get with the program.

And for the record this has nothing to do with agreeing with their politics and I think GWB was a terrible president. The question is was Yale right to accept him, and the answer is absolutely, yes, as he became a US president.