One factor that definitely influenced D24’s decision on where to attend was what the campus vibe was in terms of open and respectful discussions and exchange of ideas.
Colleges that felt or had reputations for being too far on either end of the spectrum of “hot topics to debate” were totally off the table. Pretty much because she didn’t want to get screamed or yelled at while walking to class. And didn’t want to get shunned, yelled at, bullied, etc. for not hopping onto whatever the hot topic bandwagon happens to be at the time.
Based on her experience so far at her college, it seems like what her gut said on the tours we did was spot on. And a senior administrator confirmed that during a parent orientation session on move in weekend when he discussed the Columbia University protests and how their college was handling discussions of topics where people feel really passionately about the topic.
For our D26, affordability is a big factor and ability to get a job in her field after graduation. She’s not going to be applying to any elite institutions.
Maybe 5-6 yr ago, our family would have been more focused in college rankings. But now? Don’t give a rip what the US News & World Report ranking is.
This stellar, on paper, kid applied to 16 schools and did not get in. He got a job at Google and a year later is suing for anti-Asian discrimination. I wonder if suing is or will become a trend.
Interesting points from the article that, IMO, will make this case hard to win, if not downright baseless:
The student was rejected by 16 of some of the most selective colleges in the country, but accepted to UT-Austin (where he enrolled) and U-MD. So, he did get a seat at a couple of fine tables. He was not shut out.
At 18, he left UTA for Google where he now works in a software engineering position that typically requires an advanced degree. (At 13, he was approached by Google to discuss positions but his age prohibited a full-time position; the recruiter saved his resume for future follow-up.) So, he was able to obtain a coveted job that was not based on any college he did or didn’t attend. In fact, it appears a degree wasn’t even necessary for him.
Asian-Americans are well-represented in the UC system (at which this suit is targeted) where consideration of race was banned in 1996:
…the proportion of Asian Americans in the California admit pool has remained stable over the past several years. In fact, Asian Americans represented the highest proportion, almost 40 percent, of the University’s 2023 incoming California freshman class.
The case was rejected or ignored by all the law firms the father sought counsel from, so he filed the case himself with the help of ChatGPT and Gemini.
It will be very hard to prove harm in this case. Slow day at the LA Times?
Whenever I see this thread, I think of the many many graduates who had no in person graduation ceremonies in 2020 from undergrad, grad, professional schools, high schools, etc.
It’s not about admissions…it’s about the conclusions. So, please carry on.
The Stanley Zhong situation was extensively talked about starting at around post 1980 of the designated thread for race in college admissions in the politics section.
Just to add to the comment by @ucbalumnus above (for those who might not frequent the politics forum), Stanley Zhong did not actually have the “stellar” application that the article implies. If you look at his high school transcript (discussed in the thread mentioned) you will see that he lacked rigor compared to typical peers at his high school.
Is there any evidence of this? I’ve heard that many kids are not sending their scores and yet they’ve done rather well for UC admissions. In fact, some schools in California don’t even recommend the AP tests which is odd if they’re actually taking AP scores into account. Given the expense of taking these tests, I would think the UC system would not be relying on these scores but who knows? UC’s tend to be very good at publishing stats. Do they list the number of scores submitted per student and the grade vs. acceptance rate somewhere?
Indeed. Here is the announcement from MIT back in November 2024 that tuition would be free for families earning less than 200k which was months before Harvard made a similar announcement:
I think UC admission is very school specific. There is absolutely evidence of that at my child’s high school. Only the kids with very strong AP scores get in. Grades are important only because everybody nowadays has A’s, so if you don’t, you will not be admitted from our school. Every single kid we know who has gotten into UCLA over the past 5 years also had very high SAT/ACT scores and a ton of 5s. Berkeley is a mixed bag.
But this doesn’t mean other high schools are the same. If a high school doesn’t have APs, then I am sure they are looking at other things. Remember kids are evaluated in their context of high school.
Yes but there is a poster here who I think said that the UC’s don’t put much if any weight on the AP scores because not everyone can afford them. Sorry but I forget the poster. It may have been @worriedmomucb which is why I would like to see data to suggest this is the case as I have seen the opposite ie. high AP scores which do not seem to matter much at all while dual enrollment does.
Re: sending AP scores to colleges -
When D24 was applying, I asked the college counselor at our HS if we needed to send official AP scores to every college she was applying to. Counselor’s advice was:
that wasn’t necessary
student self-reports on the Common App (or whatever app portal the student is applying through)
once accepted & student decides to attend there, THEN you request the official scores to be sent to the college.
there sometimes are specific colleges that want official AP test scores at the application end of the process, but D24 wasn’t applying to any of those
you can always have your student contact the admissions office at the college to directly ask them about this question.
So that’s what D24 did. Although she only asked the question at the Admissions offices for the 3 private colleges she applied to. And all 3 of them (none of them were Top 25/reachy reach schools) said self-reported is fine and then official ones once you enroll.
I think not measuring up is rather inaccurate. Males tend to want to pursue fields that are known to pay well ie. STEM most notably engineering and cs, business, finance, econ, health care etc. Of course, there are men who pursue history and psychology etc but often men won’t bother with a college degree without a guaranteed earning potential as many think they can just go to trade school and earn more money as an electrician, plumber, carpenter etc. Thus, men are more focused on only some degrees and compete with each other for these spots. Women pursue college even if the field they choose is not tied to high salaries because most won’t pursue a trade and without that, they are limited to jobs that don’t have the same earning potential as jobs for college degree holders. Ergo, you’ll see women pursue Classics, foreign languages etc where the standards for admission are likely lower. If males were to pursue these fields, the admit rates for males would likely increase.
Would love to see evidence for your various claims.
There are a LOT of “lower performing” students clustered in the undergrad business schools in our country- even in finance which on CC is alleged to require rocket-science brain power. Once you leave the Wharton, Michigan, etc. cluster behind, you will meet a LOT of kids who in no way shape or form could cut it majoring in Classics, History, etc.
In fact, the “exit interviews” out of more rigorous majors where kids confess “I need something easier” typically involve “I can’t read 800 pages a week” or more commonly “there is no way I can write a research paper with appendix, index, and proper citations”.
Hence- business major. Lots and lots of business majors.
I don’t believe this is at all related to gender (my own Classics department was overwhelmingly male-- even back then. And for historical reasons- the Boarding and Prep schools which were known to teach Greek and Latin at a superior level were majority male at the time, even the ones which had admitted girls for a while). But I’d love to see an analysis by gender which supports your claim.
In fact, for several generations (all of the 20th century in fact) the most popular majors for girls in college were nursing and education. Precisely because they led to jobs immediately after graduating, vs. the male dominated fields which either required grad school or didn’t have an obvious on-ramp.
Boys, Girls, and Grades: Examining GPA and SAT Trends - American Institute for Boys and Men indicates that boys do worse than girls in HS GPA (3.0 for boys, 3.23 for girls on average). For the SAT, boys are better represented at both the top and bottom ends, with the top end being boosted by math scores. Given that HS GPA is typically the most important college admission criterion, it is not surprising that girls do better in college admissions. SAT (and ACT) optional or blind policies reduce or remove an admission advantage that top-end boys may have (although SAT does not appear to be an advantage for boys in the more ordinary range).
However, increased admission competition for certain subjects is mostly at the more selective end of colleges. Majors like CS and engineering majors are not more competitive at most moderately or less selective colleges (e.g. non-impacted CSUs in California and some forum favorites like University of Alabama). The exception is nursing, which is more competitive almost everywhere, and is a mostly female major.
I think high AP scores CAN help in admissions, but my point is that they are not necessary. UCs do not require any AP scores at all and you can do very well in UC admissions without any AP scores. If you have them and they’re strong, great. If you don’t, it’s not a deal-breaker. Example: my daughter submitted zero test scores and not only got into UC Berkeley, but was selected as a Regents Scholar, so was considered to be in the top 1% of all applicants. She took 4 AP classes total and took zero AP exams. This is not unusual at her school - few AP classes are offered and students are limited in how many they can take. Most top students take between 4 and 6 AP classes. Tests are not required and are not particularly emphasized. Some take them, some don’t. Her schools does very well in UC admissions, across all campuses. I do not have data in terms of how many AP tests each submits and which UCs they were accepted to, but I am speaking generally that a low number (or no number) of AP tests is common at our school with very good UC results. We get less good results at non-UC T20: we get maybe one or two Ivy acceptances each year, maybe an MIT acceptance every two years. Speculation could be that the lower emphasis on testing doesn’t play as well outside the UCs.
Yes. I have a lot of business, engineering, and aviation majors who run into a lot of trouble with my intro history classes, because no one has ever asked them to read challenging texts and analyze them in depth and detail. I end up teaching reading and writing as much as I teach history in these classes. And those are the students – the engineering/business/aviation majors – who drop out. They signed up for an intro-level history survey to meet their general studies requirements, and they think it’ll be easy, but it’s not.
And, in the spirit of getting back to the topic of the thread, this problem was always present, but it’s been much worse in the past five years (between Covid learning loss and now Chat GPT and its ilk). I’m seeing that students lack the stamina to read deeply, identify questions to ask of their readings, and devote the thought and patience required for careful analytical writing. I tell my non-majors that studying history builds intellectual resilience and offers new ways to think about problem-solving, but they often lack the determination to stick with it.
Nursing and education are still very popular for women but outside of that, women are the most likely to pursue other fields that are not high paying.
You graduated quite awhile back and times have changed greatly which includes what degrees people are pursuing. Here’s an article that says 78% of lucrative college degrees are earned by men.
Sorry I may have lumped in Classics as I was thinking more along the line of languages ie. foreign languages which tend to be pursued by women. My point still stands. Women are more likely to pursue degrees that are not high paying because they don’t really have as many options as men do for high paying jobs without a college degree if they aren’t going to pursue a trade.