DIdn’t you and I already argue this on another thread? Chicago is looking for a level of prepared kid, the sort who does seek information and, among other qualities, self advocate. I know it’s possible. Every kid? No.
But yu seem to pose the image of a kid entirely lost, with zero resources. An extreme. No teacher to guide, no program for bright first gens, nothing. If so, are those the prepared and tested kids Chicago is looking for?
Iknow we sometimes wish more could be accomplished. But this is incemental.
"DIdn’t you and I already argue this on another thread? "
Yes, but you’re still posting the same stuff.
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Not Grapes of Wrath wretchedness but tougher than it being a simple matter for the top students to just know how to compose the perfect app.
Definitely! And what you see is impressive and amazing. Those are the ones that have it figured out. And all the top colleges are fighting over them because the qualified low income, URM and first gen students are in short supply.
But that’s not who UChicago is trying to reach with Empower (or so they say.) They’re already receiving apps from those kids - who have enough figured out that they not only have the ability to put together a great app but have the confidence and imagination to do so. They’re trying to dig into the next layer… the undiscovered, unsupported genius kids that don’t have access to Stuy or Questbridge type resources.
I don’t think any of the top colleges are seeing many apps from those kids. This idea is supported by the Hoxby and Avery study that shows most top qualified low income students don’t apply to top colleges. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586
When top colleges like UChicago seek to dig into that layer of kids who haven’t previously applied and might not have local resources to encourage or support them, they will be receiving applications from a whole new type of student that really hasn’t been seen before. They won’t know what they don’t know. The more guidance and guidelines those students can be given, the more helpful. Again, they’re much less likely to have typical ECs, they’re much less likely to understand by grade 9 that they need to be in a certain math track to get to the most rigorous classes later on (they may even think it’s most impressive to get straight As so be careful about what they sign up for), they may assume that even though they have the brainpower to score 1500 on the SAT since it’s optional they shouldn’t bother to take that Saturday off work to take the test.
The selectives have already mined the low hanging fruit - the first gen and low income that are still part of the established system, those that have Stuy and Questbridge resources to help them blend in. If they want to access the next layer of previously unreached, undiscovered talent, they’ll need to understand that they can’t expect these students to somehow understand the system because most of these students live so far outside the system it’s like living in a different country.
I just wish this conversation could take place without villains and so much adversarial tone. We are talking about young people. Some perceived well off kids work their butts off too. Also some boarding school kids aren’t rich. Don’t see their parents very often and don’t have the love and counsel some others deemed more worthy enjoy.
I think educating kids through social media and national campaigns about college options should be funded. Perhaps making test prep more available.
But aren’t we judging in the same way as those who supposedly look down on an urm as an affirmative action beneficiary. So if someone is perceived to be affluent they obviously had test prep and a caring parent guiding them to just the right ecs. They didn’t earn their spot on their merits either.
It’s the same thing. More diversity is great. Being successful is ok too in life. Successful families add to the fabric of a nation as well. Just ask any of your friends who work at not for profits if there aren’t great people supporting their mission every day. Affluent people dont automatically equate arrogant and entitled.
Wealth distribution is a problem but income is a bit more democratic.
Let’s work together and stop all of this endless search for the differences. If we want to embrace differences it should be all differences not just the ones we as individuals think are more important.
One of the reasons I’m less critical of the UChicago mailings is that mass mailings just like that are one of the suggestions in the Hoxby/Avery study. The authors of the study conclude that it’s difficult to reach all these top qualified students in rural areas because the geographic concentration of these students is too low for a physical visit to be effective. The study concludes that one of the best ways to reach these top students who are currently not applying to any top colleges is to increase mass mailings. Cast a wide net to find those 2% - 3% that would be incredible UChicago students who are currently not applying to any school more selective than the local public college.
And there are a lot of local public colleges that I would rather have my kid attend than u Chicago. Lots. And I don’t think as a graduate of one these great schools had put me or any one else at any disadvantage in life or opportunity than any of my Chicago buddies. Not in the least. Einstein and millions more in history didn’t go to Chicago or Harvard and still made their way to the top. Let’s give kids a quality education wherever they go.
I think educational elitism is the same as any other elitism. And usually not held in very high regard as a character trait
"So eliminate the SAT/ACT requirement and the admission process becomes even less transparent, more based on non-quantifiable items. Every kid has a very high GPA. So it comes down to essays, letters and things become very hazy. Proof of discrimination becomes harder to prove.
No one has answered the question of what would replace holistic admissions. Its been asked many times but I have yet to see a real answer. How do you differentiate among all the kids with high stats? There are far more of them then spots at U of C.
• This thread is not about the Harvard lawsuit. That thread got shut down, but that does not mean that the conversation should migrate here.
• Let’s move past debating on the percentage of AA (or any other group) at Chicago (or any other university)
That’s why nothing will replace holistic admissions. Not going to happen because a court would have to order it and where do you think many of those judges graduated from?
Undergerad colleges represented on the Supreme Court: Princetom, Harvard, Stanford, Holy Cross, Georgetown, Cornell.
Connections are pretty important in life. People who might not deserve to be at the top of the economic pyramid are there via connections and they make bad decisions that affect everyone else.
You should want the best the smartest to go to the influential schools with powerful alumni networks.
Is that determined by grades and scores? How about innate ability to lead, that is important, and how do you measure it? No, we are where were at because the system works well enough.
BTW, the single most important thing leading to financial success is how you interact with others.
“BTW, the single most important thing leading to financial success is how you interact with others.”
Are you financially successful?
I am. I can tell you that how you interact with others isn’t nearly as important as having pre-existing capital and ton of cash. Just look at Trump.
The US economic policy is to reward capital and punish labor. This is why the Fed has a fetish for low interest rates and mass immigration. It’s also the reason why the government opened up the borders to corrupt foreign oligarchs following the 2008 housing market collapse to reinvigorate housing assets.
I ask again: Who are these people pushing laws that favor the wealthy and punish the working class? Where did they graduate from and how did they get in?
I think this change won’t make the process easier, on the contrary, it will make it harder for everyone to get accepted (more students believing that they have a chance), and stand out from the rest of applicants. Let’s say all factors considered in the application process make a whole. If the SAT/ACT score won’t be a fundamental part of the admission decision anymore, another one must replace it in terms of importance: extracurricular activities, national competitions, science research, highly specialized summer programs, etc. Also, the school’s (HS) reputation will play a decisive role. AO’s will pay more attention to what an A+ means in every school, which ones inflate grades, and how hard the students need to work to have a perfect GPA in each HS. This new structure of the applications will make the process more difficult to fulfill for the applicants and figure out if they have a chance to be admitted or not and will make it easier for the university to identify the unique and special students they really want from a wider and more diverse poll. Now it will be more subjective. Standard tests are a well-known territory. This new panoramic will be a totally new one. It won’t be easier for anyone but will give a chance to hidden gems that otherwise would have never applied or get accepted.
“Undergerad colleges represented on the Supreme Court: Princetom, Harvard, Stanford, Holy Cross, Georgetown, Cornell.”
The supreme court right now is conservative, those colleges you list are liberal. There’s really no connection between where a supreme court justice goes undergrad and their views, which is probably a good thing.
