I’ve got ask which kids? You asked an interesting question but probably won’t like the answer supported by facts.</p>
<p>This posts shows the number of undergraduate degrees in a few fields …
[Bachelor’s</a> degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions in selected fields of study: 1997–98, 2002–03, and 2007–08](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/figures/fig_15.asp]Bachelor’s”>Bachelor's degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions in selected fields of study: 1997–98, 2002–03, and 2007–08) … fyi, the are more psychology degrees awards per year than all engineering degrees … so it sure appears that a much larger percentage of all students are interested in liberal arts, business, and education than in STEM majors. So it seems the market based question would be should schools cut STEM slots for students to respond to the market? I certainly hope my 3 schools DO NOT cut STEM positions and maintain their mission to provide education acrosss a breath of majors … and develop an infrastructure and admissions policies to fulfill this mission.</p>
<p>I don’t see why these aliens need Harvard. </p>
<p>I am all for taking over Julliard and convert it to a STEM school. After all Julliard has lower admission rates (did someone say 2-3% at Julliard?) which makes it far superior to Harvard and Yale. Since these Aliens like Music, we can allow the existing staff to stay and have some of those STEM professors to come and teach from Princeton/Columbia/UPenn/and what the heck, even Harvard.</p>
<p>So here’s my solution to your game. As “…the faculty is extremely impressed, and ready to take these kids right into the PhD programs”, I would accept them all as PhD candidates. Thus, the crystal ball remains "100% infallible, while “all of humanity benefits”, as these students got into “a SPECIFIC institution”, and 1000 seats are “… left to cover URMs, Whites, and non-STEM applicants” for those who want to pursue a Bachelor’s degree.</p>
<p>This looks like a toss-off line, but in fact it’s the gist of the issue. Elite universities in general, and Harvard very much in particular, resemble nothing so much as a large faculty cooperative. The point of a traditional Western university is to support faculty scholarship by providing them with capital (labs, libraries, offices, equipment, assistants, etc.), administrative support, and cash flow from several sources, including student tuition. While of course over time the institution will shift its faculty to meet student (and social) demand – at least the institutions that survive more than a couple of generations will do that – at any particular time the institution IS more or less selecting the students its faculty wants to teach. That is pretty much explicit. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand what these universities are.</p>
<p>Several good answers. So HYPSM doesn’t care for the students, they are just ATMs for faculty when a student, and treasure troves when they are alumni.</p>
<p>Fabrizio and Sewhappy seem to think that without AA URMs would not lose representation at elite Universities…or do they think they will lose representation but that it is OK. Not sure which is the current thought on this.</p>
<p>(IndianParent seems little more than a ■■■■■ to me so I am having a hard time taking him/her seriously).</p>
<p>I would prefer my kid to be happy and ignore all social pressure to conform, that’s about it. </p>
<p>By the way, given that very few Americans are leaders, I don’t get the point of this obsession for leadership. It is impossible for everyone to be a leader, mathematically speaking.</p>
<p>Speaking of getting out of the comfort zone, would you tell all non-Asians kids to not be afraid of piano and math, and practice, practice, practice? To challenge themselves to qualify for the USAMO, even though it may scare them? Expose themselves to the richness of classical music to grow as a person?</p>
<p>You know, I read the above, and wonder what is wrong with the world that I live in, where few of the above skills are required to succeed. A modicum of intelligence and super hard work seems all that matters. What am I missing here? This is the USA. A loner doctor with Asperger’s sitting alone in a room in CA can figure out through meticulous work exactly how the housing boom is going to go bust, bet against the housing market, and make hundreds of millions.</p>
<p>Why not? Let’s help them, but let’s also tell them in no uncertain terms to start caring about education. To do otherwise is to completely misguide them.</p>
<p>Hunt, I think we need to hear from Pizzagirl and epiphany on this, because apparently you do not share their reverence of “holistic” admissions. If that’s the case, my apologies for misunderstanding your position. </p>
<p>If that’s not the case, then I’m confused. I thought the whole point of holistic admissions was that test scores aren’t everything. Granted, that doesn’t mean test scores are nothing, but your argument is only valid if test scores are weighed as heavily as stereotypical Asians “who don’t get it” think they are weighed.</p>
<p>Let me clarify that yes, if the SAT were everything, then in the absence of racial preferences, “URM” enrollment would drop precipitously. As you correctly noted, there simply aren’t enough high scoring blacks, and there probably aren’t enough high scoring Latinos.</p>
<p>But the SAT is not everything; I shouldn’t have to point this out. You’re saying that holistic admissions (i.e. the consideration of subjective criteria) is not enough to staunch the reduction in “URM” enrollment.</p>
<p>That can only mean one thing: "URM"s are getting in solely because of their racial classification. They are not getting in because they have something to offer in terms of interests and talents. They are getting in just because they can claim a certain group membership.</p>
<p>I have no problems with admitting a “URM” who may have lower SAT scores than average if he demonstrates a genuine interest that “HYPSM et al” feel is uncommon in the applicant pool or if he demonstrates a “Wow!” talent. No problems at all. I don’t care that his SAT might be lower than average.</p>
<p>But I have a lot of problems if you want to admit him just because he’s a “URM” and there aren’t “enough” of them. That is a violation of Bakke: “If petitioner’s purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that happened, and I remain unconvinced that it will given holistic admissions, I would not think there was any problem, no.</p>
<p>Unless “HYPSM et al” weigh the SAT as much as Asians “who don’t get it” think it’s weighed, I don’t share your fears of disappearing "URM"s under holistic admissions.</p>
<p>You can’t have it both ways, but to be fair, you are not Pizzagirl or epiphany, and to my recollection, you have not thumped that hammer as often as they have.</p>
<p>Fab, I think the “holistic” system you are recommending takes no objective academic statistics into account at all. Sure you can get equal representation this way…it sounds more like a lottery really. No way to handle admissions at the nations top schools (I know you know this too). </p>
<p>Do you think you can get equal representation by getting rid of the SAT, but still keeping GPA, class rank, rigor of curriculum, rigor of high school etc?</p>
<p>And if you really want equal representation well…why not just take race into account!!</p>
<p>Let me clarify, soomoo. I constantly read posts saying that the SAT is not everything, that subjective criteria are considered (i.e. “holistic” admissions). That already peeves me, as no one in this thread is advocating that admissions be based on solely on what former Stanford President Casper termed “quantitative, scaleable…criteria.” You can imagine, then, that it peeves me even more to read posts arguing that without racial preferences, "URM"s will disappear at “HYPSM et al” because…there are not enough high-scoring "URM"s based on the SAT.</p>
<p>Since you have now reached the point where you are confusing even yourself, let me help you with this: You see HYPSM as just ATMs for students whom you personally imagine as meritorious. HYPSM selects students whose brains are promising in the view of the faculty, which knows an engaged brain when it sees it. </p>
<p>Therefore, no need for any parent on this thread to feel liberal or conservative guilt about why Student X or Y did or did not get in, may or may not get in the future. If your kid got in, he or she deserved it.</p>