651–660 of 684 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> legacy preferences Why does this even exist?
How do you think some of those fancy new wings/building get their names?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If college is the only way to make a good living, then rational actors will game and lobby their way to getting in. Even in the 1990s, a CS program was easy to get into and a local 4 year degree was sufficient for most lines of work.
At least in the 70s, if you gamed your way into admission at Caltech by doing test prep, coaching, having someone else do your application essays, etc., you were going to be sorry. Because you would find it impossible to do the work required. Caltech did a good job of screening because the ones they admitted could do the work (though a lot dropped out simply because they didn't want to work). But there were a few tha…
I think this is true for a lot of engineering schools. Maybe there just isn't as much of a demand to go to the pure STEM schools as there is the schools that have everything. Like I remember looking at requirements for Rutgers at the same time and essentially they had like a 3.2 (or maybe 3.4 GPA) minimum and you'd have to re-take all the core CS classes as they would not accept those classes from community college.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can study for them and objectively do better, become a better applicant The thing is, attempts to measure the effect of test prep show they have little effect. According to these studies, SAT test prep courses might add ~30 points to your score: https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
did you read that link or just the subtitle? quoting the penultimate paragraph (why are the relevant bits always buried?) > Analyzing a 2008 survey conducted by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, he noted that one-third of respondents described a jump from 750 to 770 on the math portion of the SAT as having a significant effect on a student’s chances of admissions, and this was true among coun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But for the beneficence of the aristocracy... I think that's a joke of an argument. The people whose kids would no longer get in would go somewhere and the distribution of their bribery would surely be more democratizing.
Did you not read the part where the ‘aristocracy’ pays way more tuition money for their one child? If you weren’t so focused on class warfare, you’d realize all of that extra money can be used for other things such as scholarships for families who wouldn’t be able to afford a university education for their children. The people you’re referring to wouldn’t be able to afford tuition before the rate hikes, and they sure…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In re to LSAT at least a decade ago your LSAT score meant shit. I’m S Asian, scored 99th percentile 17x, but my GPA was around 3.3 because I think college is a joke when it involves homework. I had never gotten less than a A on midterms and finals, but what I’m trying to say is that GPA and race matters much more. There was a law school acceptance calculator. With my scores and my Asian background, the T14 were eithe…
> Yes I don’t give a shit about homework, I understand the material which is why I’m slaying each test. I hated that about college. We are adults. I’m paying to get an education, why the fuck is homework 20% of the grade? It’s practice, for people who don’t get the material. So what you're admitting is that you are willing to not to do required parts of your job because you don't feel they're important. If you go out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One would hope so. Ideally, the people of the future will have progressed beyond the relative savagery of me and my peers and look upon us with disdain. Perhaps for how much I enjoy a good steak, or for the genital mutilation of our boys.
Pet ownership is my favourite example of what will be seen as immoral in the future.
I was visiting Bay Area a year before COVID and stopped by in Berkeley for something, iirc was getting brunch with friends. The first thing I see after parking is a full street closure and a large crowd that looked like it was marching down the street, with people holding banners, drumming, chanting slogans, etc.
Out of curiosity, I decided to check what it was about. As you have probably guessed by now, "pet ownership is slavery" was the theme (one of the banners in the front was saying exactly that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If college is the only way to make a good living, then rational actors will game and lobby their way to getting in. Even in the 1990s, a CS program was easy to get into and a local 4 year degree was sufficient for most lines of work.
At least in the 70s, if you gamed your way into admission at Caltech by doing test prep, coaching, having someone else do your application essays, etc., you were going to be sorry. Because you would find it impossible to do the work required. Caltech did a good job of screening because the ones they admitted could do the work (though a lot dropped out simply because they didn't want to work). But there were a few tha…
For someone like me, who believed they could do it, but didn't have the "perfect" admissions packet (moving to the US midway through high school with very poor english and zero knowledge of how the US education/admission systems work will do that), it was the chance I needed, and I am immensely grateful for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me put your concerns to rest… There are no elite schools that systematically discriminate against Asians. Zero. None. Let me add a few points that counter some folks who think that schools do discriminate against Asians: - Some schools do give preferential treatment to Black and Latino/an applicants. This is not a particularly good look for the schools, imho, but it’s the reality. This is not the same as discrimi…
"they really don’t understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant" I think it's pretty clear that even if they did understand what makes for a strong elite school applicant and refocused their energies on meeting those criteria en masse, these elite schools would change that criteria, because the criteria are a means to an end.
That’s a nice opinion you have.
Do you have any evidence to support this?
The case against Harvard showed us pretty much everything behind the curtain. If there is any systemic bias against any group, that must be the best kept secret in the world.
Check out this article:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/27/opinion/harvard-presi...
Select quote:
“Don’t be fooled by those using the Jewish quota of the mid-20th century or charges of discrimination against Asian Americans (also despicable when true, but which the lower courts convincingly found was not the case here) as an excuse to limit the inclusion of Black and Latino students at selective universities.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you're seeing is that Asian-Americans are better qualified, but not enough of them are accepted as one would expect from being better qualified. Please reread my entire comment. I covered your thesis, and I am fairly certain that it is an inappropriate characterization of the reality. Specifically, every study I have seen that makes this claim determines that Asians are “more qualified” based exclusively on a…
> Grades and SAT scores are only one factor of many that are used in admissions decisions. The other factors were added specifically in order to give universities leeway to massage the demographics of the incoming class. IIRC this kind of holistic admission was invented specifically to be able to reject Jewish applicants who tended to be academically strong but less "well rounded" than WASPs. So ivies effectively put…
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/27/opinion/harvard-presi...
The original push for diversity was successfully implemented by Eliot (president before Lowell).
Lowell definitely twisted the implementation and took it in a twisted direction (notable that his beliefs were more widely held than Eliot’s), but all of that was (relatively quickly) undone by Conant (president after Lowell), and a push toward more diversity in the manner of Eliot was continued.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you're seeing is that Asian-Americans are better qualified, but not enough of them are accepted as one would expect from being better qualified. Please reread my entire comment. I covered your thesis, and I am fairly certain that it is an inappropriate characterization of the reality. Specifically, every study I have seen that makes this claim determines that Asians are “more qualified” based exclusively on a…
this is chilling. thank you I guess for completely dropping any pretenses here. this system of well-roundedness was, as other people have alluded previously, invented to exclude high achieving ethnic groups ( as per the perception of the in-group ) from overrunning elite institutions of learning. this system is being employed to cap Asian admissions.
There is no cap on Asian admissions, and there never will be. The Asians that get rejected at the margin have similar profiles to White people who are rejected at the margin. If you think that this is incorrect, then I would love to see some supporting evidence, There is an abundance of available info due to the lawsuit, and none of it seems to have pointed to discrimination against Asians.
Diversity steps were taken by Eliot in the 1800s. Lowell took them in a dark direction, but he wasn’t the originator.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/27/opinion/harvard-presi...
I’m really saddened that so many people are quick to jump on the “Harvard bad” bandwagon without actually knowing the facts or the history. It an incredible story
The current admissions process at this point is fairly refined, and the evaluation rubrics are public knowledge, and I think they do a fairly good job of getting the school the wide variety of students it needs.