Colleges that ditched admission tests find it harder to fairly choose students

For instance, like some here, I never knew about SAT prep, etc., but I did run a business in high school and did a ton of hardware/science projects, which both in retrospect made me far better prepared for startup life than anything school taught me.

However, this more makes me think we need a better way of matching students with schools, training, and other programs that fit their style. People think the "Learning Styles" approach has been discredited, with in specific they're right, but that doesn't mean that the current style of school is good for everyone either.

I went to school in rural Western Pennsylvania with parents who went to community college, and I definitely didn't have anyone helping me think through any of this stuff. Big shame, because plenty of people have everything but the right environment / people around them to help them succeed. I was lucky to go to Pittsburgh and found the startup scene basically by random.

That remains non-obvious. After all, IQ tests aren't supposed to be something you can prepare for. So why should the SAT be, if it's this kind of supposedly holistic aptitude test? Why isn't "school overall" all the possible preparation you could do?

Again, the difficulty isn't primarily in getting the extra resources. It's in even knowing that it's something extra resources would help with at all.

So the idea that there's "no exuse" is awfully judgmental. It's not just what kids don't know -- it's what they don't even know they don't know. You're not going to Google something if you'd never even suspect it existed, and you shouldn't be blamed for that.

You are making a nuanced argument for sure then. But the Students for Fair Admissions have explicitly made the case that whites are given an advantage that takes Asian seats at Harvard via the children of faculty admissions, donations, essays, athletics, etc. But this discounts donations from certain foreign governments and I think it creates a misconception about the average white student there and pressures Harvard to specifically accept fewer whites (WASPs in particular imo) because that is the only socially acceptable result of their lawsuits despite whites being underrepresented there anyway. No one questions whether any other group has a backdoor admissions advantage though.

But the institutions are controlled by them. And minorities must appeal to their fancy to get in.

If you had said this about any other group it would not be socially acceptable even though a case could plausibly be made that Harvard is not run by the stereotypical blazer and khaki wearing WASPs. That's really what I am trying to point out is how strange it is that only WASPs can ever be criticized. I am not even trying to play a race card and I am strongly in favor of free speech. I am just trying to point out that in my opinion there is misdirection going on and that WASPs are probably being scapegoated in the fight over Harvard. Especially since anti-WASPishness has been the esprit de corps in academia for some time, I doubt they have any real control there. See other commenter's posts for example.

edit: this is a deep topic for sure and touches on a lot of American history. Given that every US president until Kennedy was a WASP, and that Harvard was started by WASPs for WASPs, Harvard's student body was undoubtedly slanted towards WASPs. But I personally doubt this has been true for at least a decade now but probably longer.

There was no religious requirement for being a Boy Scout, there were never any religious ceremonies at meetings, religion was never even mentioned in any of the activities or meetings.

The only thing was one requirement for the Eagle Scout.

The religious thing was just a convenient excuse for the people who hated the Scouts.