<p>Oh, you can find plenty of kids whose true passion is STEM in the top academic institutions. But also many kids whose true passion is STEM get kicked out, even though their overall student index was better than the prospective French Major who got in. The right thing for these kids to do is to claim to have a penchant for everything French, get in, and then switch majors. That’s my point. You have to be authentic sounds like a commercial that asks kids to show their uniqueness by buying the same brand name clothes as all the other kids. </p>
<p>Authenticity kills Asian kids in college applications.</p>
<p>Perhaps, but isn’t it quite interesting that the author of the most often cited research has gone through great lengths to explain what his study did NOT prove. Actually, he has been derided and demonized for his steadfast refusal to endorse the views that his study DID demonstrate discrimination, including being called Espenshady. </p>
<p>The reality is that, while Espenshade could easily, offer dozens of theories that partially support the theories of discrimination, he has done just the opposite by publicly denouncing people who reached for erroneous conclusions based on his work. For what it is worth, we do not have to spend much time debating about the true meaning of “prove” and discuss its arcane mathematical definition. Espenshade clearly says that his research does not represent an analysis of admission practices nor an indictment of discriminatory practices by admission officers. He actually clearly states that he has no doubt that admission officiers use “admission equations.” </p>
<p>Again, it is hard to make a case when the author of the research dismisses it so vocally and repeatedly. In a way this is not that different from Michael Young position on the many erroneous conclusions that were based on his seminal The Rise of the Meritocracy.</p>
<p>xiggi, If there is no discrimination, would you be in favor of a law that would ban discrimination? After all, it wouldn’t impact anything, right?</p>
<p>IndianParent, I find this paragraph fascinating. </p>
<p>May I take a wild guess in that this should be highly applicable to schools that focus on the world of finance, consulting, or investment banking. Another wild guess is that this is more Wharton than Caltech! </p>
<p>Inasmuch as I do not disagree with you in principle, I’d like to add that this might not be universally true. Some schools seem quite content to see their graduates flocking to companies (including startups) that are as distant of the world of GS as humanly possible. In fact, they are quite worried that their brightest and best do not even wait to graduate to go build the next killer apps or develop technology few understand.</p>
<p>GS was one example. Substitute Google for GS if you want. I just gave an example of what I am familiar with. My measurement stands, however. The point of going to college is to get an internship for two years at a top notch place, then go to graduate school, and then start your career. At least that’s how I feel my kid’s generation are going to be. Which is why I want my kid in HYPSM. Though chances are that my kid will go in a completely different direction, towards Julliard and the like. Which I will fully support, of course.</p>
<p>Let’s say today there is a new Federal Law that states that colleges that accept any form of public funding must abide by the 14th Amendment. Would you be in favor, against, or indifferent? Since there is no racial discrimination today in your opinion (please correct me if I am misstating), the racial distribution in colleges shouldn’t change as a result so the law will basically be a non-issue.</p>
<p>I went to a public high school in a part of rural South Georgia. Would you expect there to be “many middle-class blacks” in such an area?</p>
<p>Of course I met many more at Georgia Tech; it would have been surprising if I did not! And I don’t see why it’s “not clear” that I don’t know many middle-class folks?</p>
<p>As I said, you’re free to believe that I am prejudiced against middle-class blacks. I am not, but it does not appear that I can convince you otherwise.</p>
<p>Yes, and that would be wise as those schools surely offer a solid track record. </p>
<p>However, is there a reason why the list of known pipelines might not include schools such as Brown, Cornell, or Penn/Wharton? Is it also entirely laughable to consider that graduates from top LACs such as Amherst or Wellesley could be good candidates for the path you presented? </p>
<p>Again, I do not disagree with you, but find the proposal a tad too confining.</p>
<p>Oh. Well, some of us look for intellectual stimulation and a love of learning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ewww! Sorry, could you be more nouveau riche and tacky than judging a school by how many kids get into Goldman Sachs? That’s got NOTHING to do with how good the school is – GS (etc) are not magical places that are any better than any place else, they are simply places of employment, nothing more. Don’t tell me, let me guess - your kid would be a “failure” if he or she became a teacher, or a minister, or a social science researcher, or a foreign diplomat, or an artist, or something else that wasn’t pointed towards making gobs of money. It’s all about the benjamins. Ew, ew, ew. </p>
<p>How incredibly depressing to go to a school where the majority of kids are pointed towards just one career field, or just a handful. I hope that never happens to my own alma mater.</p>
<p>ROFL! And parents who dictate what their kids are interested in, and see the purpose of college as a) getting into the highest-ranked possible for b) the pursuit of money-money-money, produce … textureless grinds.</p>
<p>I’m really embarrassed for you, IndianParent. No beauty in life - it’s all about numbers and money and bank accounts.</p>
<p>It is a free country. I respect your choice and your aversion for mine.</p>
<p>I have no idea what my kid will end up being. You cannot control your kids, you have to let them follow their passion (even if it is for STEM, or to earn a lot of money). Right now for my kid that looks like classical pianist, composer, and conductor. It’s a hard place to succeed, but I will be fully supportive.</p>
<p>I understand that these all has to be offered. I don’t understand why if the top (by student index) students don’t want to study any of these some of the top students should be kicked out to make room for others of lower student index who will study these.</p>
<p>Also, please don’t call me names such as a ■■■■■, nouveau riche, and tacky. I have not made any disrespectful personal comments towards you.</p>
<p>Forgive me for not being much of a constitutional scholar. If my recollection is correct, the 14th Amendment was the basis for the USSC to undo racial segregation in the United States.</p>
<p>On that basis, I “believe” that I would support legislation that seeks to eradicate all remnants of racial segregation. However, it should also be obvious that this is why I fully support the admission policies of Stanford, to just name one.</p>
<p>We are not talking about beauties in life here. We are talking about college admissions.</p>
<p>I find your attitude rather rude. From insulting me you have now gone on to insult my kid as a textureless grind because of my opinions. That is rather ugly.</p>
<p>It was. However, the key part of it is Equal Protection. This is the part that has been used by the courts to ban any discrimination based on race.</p>
<p>Not at all, but it is a matter of odds. If in the incoming class of GS the percentage of Harvard grads are consistently over the years more than the number of Amherst grads, and about the same number of kids interviewed for the role from both schools, then odds favor Harvard over Amherst. So, anyone wanting a job in GS would prefer to go to Harvard over Amherst.</p>
<p>It works for grad school as well. If you want to be a PhD in Economics from a top school, and there are only a few truly exceptional schools that offer PhDs, and the students there are overwhelmingly represented by a small cadre of undergraduate schools, anyone whose goal is to be an economics PhD from a top school would do well to go to this small cadre of schools for undergraduate.</p>
<p>This is what I told my kid. Want to be a pianist, composer and conductor? Well, practice hard to get into Julliard (and the like).</p>