<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I disagree with this. Writing is a nonlinear, creative processes when done at a high level.<br>
I agree with you though about math/science, though unfortunate that people don’t understand the right-brained aspect of math/science. It’s a little bit odd that pgirl doesn’t know that, considering she was a math major.</p>
<p>…because some groups of people are given preferences based purely on race and ethnicity.
Still wrong. They are not preferred purely based on race/ethnicity. First, they must be capable of managing the school, academically and in other terms. Some of us keep repeating this, to no avail. They do not just go find x number of minorities. Just once, I wish some naysayer would frame his/her argument without this absurd certainty. </p>
<p>What I would prefer is more emphasis on intellectual creativity and originality Problem: they are 17. They have never lived on their own. Most of them solve problems designed for them. Mom, Dad and hs provide the framework and structure in their lives. Here, I wish we could go with examples of current high school seniors, not adults. </p>
<p>Take away AA and guess what? The top colleges will still prefer an interesting and diverse set of kids. It will not change to top-down admissions based on stats. </p>
<p>There is an active racism/AA thread (what? part 2 or 3?) for folks who want to focus on the unfair aspects of admissions divesity desires and speculate infinitely on anti-Asian bias.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I missed your point. Perhaps you didn’t express exactly what you meant, or, perhaps I do not see it the same way. However, the main thing is this: I think it is difficult to understand the exact things which ‘get people in’ to some of these schools because some of the things are not comparable. For example, my dyslexic, perfect score SAT daughter, who got into a couple of these places, has no comps. There’s no one to compare her to. Her essays elicited handwritten responses from every adcom, and she wrote on subjects she was told to avoid, by the experts. </p>
<p>I think the fundamental question being asked by the adcoms is this: “What do YOU offer the community that nobody else has to offer? Who are YOU?”</p>
<p>Clearly you also answered this question.</p>
<p>@NewHope
</p>
<p>You just incurred in Fallacy #2. Texas itself argues that they need AA to achieve a “Critical Mass”.</p>
<p>I agree with you that schools benefit from diversity, but le us not make fake arguments. Also, let us make it true diversity and not be constrained by the racial/ethnic categories defined in the census.</p>
<p>“agree with you though about math/science, though unfortunate that people don’t understand the right-brained aspect of math/science. It’s a little bit odd that pgirl doesn’t know that, considering she was a math major.”</p>
<p>I didn’t comment one way or another on right vs left brain. You must have confused me w another poster.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly don’t disagree with this sentiment. However, the vast bulk of writing, in the classroom and in everyday business, is of the churn-it-out in bulk quickly variety. Creativity is a disadvantage in such typical situations, when one sees an almost infinite number of ways to arrange the facts. </p>
<p>Creativity in writing is, of course, highly rewarded in special circumstances, whether it be in the writings of a bestselling author or top PR spinmeisters in Washington DC or Corporate America.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume some measure of intellectual creativity/originality could be ascertained from teacher recs, no?</p>
<p>"I think if there was more transparency, the universities might be less likely to do some of the dumb things they do because they would suffer a hit to the brand name. "</p>
<p>Do you think that there is some “shadow class” out there of 2000 kids who “deserved” H admittance more than those who got admitted? If so, how many of the 2000 who did get in were qualified enough by your lights? 100? 500? 1000? 1500? And how do you know they were indeed more qualified?</p>
<p>3Girls:</p>
<p>I am not arguing that if you remove AA admissions will be perfect and all . What I am arguing is that (1) assertions that AA does not “damage” the chances of certain groups, and (2) assertions that AA does not cause the average academic qualification of certain groups to be lower than the average qualification of other groups are fallacies.</p>
<p>"The problem is that it’s easy to game the system by doing dumb things that anyone can do. In the 90’s people went to Africa to do community service. Let’s just say that the vast majority of these people did not continue this sort of activity after they got into wherever they are going. "</p>
<p>Which is it - it’s unfairly rigged, or it’s easy to game the system? </p>
<p>And we all know that adcoms got bored quickly with rich-kid community service in Africa. Does that mean they are biased against rich kids?</p>
<p>Whoever noted 20k apps to H, it was 35k last year. Now, imagine half are kids who just added H to their CA list. Say, oh, 17k are truly viable, for various reasons the school established.</p>
<p>Now, imagine the great bulk of those with high stats (because of that “in-range” bar,) debate, MUN, NHS, Key Club, a walkathon or two, some recycling program at school or some role helping the principal, PTO or district, peer counseling or tutoring or helping at the local library, yearbook, sports, etc. Then a couple with robotics and math-sci competitions (usually the STEM kids.) Some with Girls/Boys State, or Scouts or church activities or babysitting. Or a job, internship, some political activity- whatever. I said, “the great bulk.” Yu add back in whatever I omitted. How would y’all sort these for merit? I think, when we see our own kids this involved (or some similar pattern,) we are proud. But, what do you expect when thousands have the same pattern?</p>
<p>I’m not even adding in yet, what essays can convey, good or bad. All of us have a right to be proud of our kids. Not all wil be “eactly” what those adcoms are looking for.</p>
<p>Collegealum: about LoRs. They can be very helpful, but many are not “creative or original.” Many are simplistic or veer off target. Some serve as confirmations the kid was in his/her class- even from highly competitive high schools. Talk about a “wild card.” That’s another shame.</p>
<p>"guess the whole question is whether we think what excites the adcoms makes any sense. For instance, a Harvard adcom was talking about one applicant who sent in an application with a shoe and said, “Now that I have one foot in the door, let in the rest of me”</p>
<p>The only people the adcoms need to answer to are the administrators/president of Harvard. If Harvard is disappointed with the caliber of whoever the adcoms bring in the door, the adcoms will change it. Clearly they are satisfied. Or, their dissatisfaction is related to desiring more diversity, not more 2400/4.0 kids, since they already reject plenty of those. </p>
<p>Just because you’re not satisfied isn’t Harvard’s problem, nor does it obligate them to change their criteria to suit you. You could stand in front of their admissions office with a sign saying “numbers only!” Guess what? They don’t care, nor do they have to.</p>
<p>NYB: the competition itself damages the chances of certain groups. Not only i it an overload of applicants to seats, the number applying from schools like TJ or Stuy alone is huge. Plus the preps. It would be better if we could eliminate the ease the CA offers for kids to apply to any- and as many- schools they want. Or, so I sometimes think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wasn’t that quick. It worked for like 10 years. Adcoms are about as good at catching up with people gaming the system as the doping officials were in catching PED users. They’re behind the curve.</p>
<p>@Pizza:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one knows an exact number, but even if you want to deny, there is a number of people who is damaged by AA. For the third time I repeat: that is way the SCOTUS is hearing the case and not trowing it out. Once again, maybe the SCOTUS will rule that the damages are acceptable given the benefits of AA, but let us stop pretend that some relatively higher qualified people is not displaced by some relatively less qualified people due to AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t advocate “numbers only” admission. You must have me confused with another poster.</p>
<p>I firmly diagree that adcoms are behind the curve. I am trying to be fair, but I often feel it is we parents, the kids and things like CC that represent “behind the curve.” Adcoms deal with thousands of kids annually, year after year. How many do we deal with? What’s our experience with other regions or states?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lookingforward, google “aleksey vayner” and tell me if you still think that.</p>
<p>More qualified and less qualified according to what criteria, NotYourBusiness? Or, more to the point, according to whom?</p>
<p>Give me a site, pls, fro Aleksey- I see so much.</p>