<p>So we should punish kids whose PARENTS (unless, of course, your implying that your the primary source of income for your family) "don't work hard" and thus don't have the same opportunities? </p>
<p>Wait! I got it! Why don't we just have a 100% legacy admit rate because their parents must have worked hard!</p>
<p>collegealum -- Yikes. Whereto begin. I said "In my opinion learning to 'walk in other people's shoes' is just as important, if not more important than scoring 2400 on the SAT. " I didn't suggest that, "that taking a person who has "walked a mile in other's shoes" is more important than the 2400 SAT score" I was not saying that SAT scores don't matter. Obviously they do. What I was trying to convey (ineffectively perhaps), is that students can benefit in college by being exposed to other intelligent students who come from different backgrounds. It is clear from the narrow thinking I see on this board that kids would benefit from seeing at the very least, that the upper middle class does not have a monopoly on intelligence or even on high SAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Income" as you describe it correlates too closely with hard work.
[/quote]
Based on your previous posts and this statement, you seem like one of those people who say that poor people are poor because they aren't working hard enough. And despite an entire group of kids here disagreeing with you, plus an admissions officer of a respectable institution, you refuse to concede your point. I guess your prep school education did make you smarter than the rest of us.</p>
<p>leonine--ok, i didn't understand what you meant.</p>
<p>epiphany--i think we are talking apples and oranges here. for the record, I do believe in requiring different standards for different socioeconomic classes...</p>
<p>I do, however, believe intelligence in the traditional sense is undervalued even when you examine admissions decisions among people with the same socioeconomic/educational background.</p>
<p>collegealum, I think you need to give some examples of how "intelligence is undervalued." By whom, and how?</p>
<p>I could add that everybody seems to have his or her own values ranking. Some people (students and adults) seem to think that hard work should be valued over intelligence. (Intelligence is actually a controversial subject & is measured differently by different tools.) Other people think that talent (athletic, artistic, even practical) should be valued over intelligence per se. I think colleges (again, with maximum diversity in mind) like to admit all 3 categories. The applicant who happens to have all 3 in abundance tends to be snatched up by several Elite U's on April 1.</p>
<p>I should add that the reason for preferring hetreogeneity over homogeneity is not just a "social engineering" movement. There is a pedagogical benefit to admitting a diversity of learners: it really does benefit the classroom learning. This is even more important on the college level than in high school. Classroom discussion and in-class analysis are a much bigger daily/weekly component of the learning. Depending on one's major, it is not uncommon for at least 50% of the learning & performance to be discussion based.</p>
<p>davanasca says So we should punish kids whose PARENTS (unless, of course, your implying that your the primary source of income for your family) "don't work hard" and thus don't have the same opportunities?"</p>
<p>WE SHOULDN'T PUNISH ANYBODY. The beauty of a merit based system is achievements speak for themselves. </p>
<p>davansca says Wait! I got it! Why don't we just have a 100% legacy admit rate because their parents must have worked hard!"</p>
<p>The vast majority of middle and upper class kids do not have legacy to elite schools</p>
<p>leone says The upper middle class does not have a monopoly on intelligence or even on high SAT scores.</p>
<p>Meritocracy is such a great concept because it is true that anybody can posess the intelligence to suceed. Even if you are poor and you don't want to pay $15 for a SAT prep book, you can walk down to your local library and
use their books! Either way, intelligence and determination can bring and end to this monopolistic conspiracy</p>
<p>yougotjohn says I guess your prep school education did make you smarter than the rest of us.</p>
<p>When did I say, or even imply for that matter, that I am smarter than anyone else on this board? </p>
<p>epiphany says There is a pedagogical benefit to admitting a diversity of learners: it really does benefit the classroom learning. </p>
<p>Benefit to what degree? It sure as hell doesn't justify rejecting kids who have earned a spot. And this makes the assumption that the kids with the greatest merit are all the same.</p>
<p>Somebody, anybody, please explain to me how class discussions would be so much greater if the students are poor/rich/in state/ out of state/ white, green, or purple. Class discussions are bettered when the students have knowledge.------<<<< Knowledge does not know the bounds of economic status or race>>>>>>------------ What is so wrong with chosing the student body based on academic merit????????????? I want to have a class with the most academically interesting students, not the most diverse.</p>
<p>trackstar: WRT diversity in classrooms, I don't expect anyone can explain it to you in a convincing way, given your biases about this. The bottom line is that when everyone discussing <em>any</em> subject comes from the same backgrounds -- socially, economically, racially, etc -- then the is discussion limited because of their shared experiences and shared blindspots. Diversity means more varieties of experience, and experience is not the same as "knowledge". </p>
<p>For example, my children spent most of their lives in very racially diverse schools in the south. Now they live in a much different area, socioeconomically. When my daughter's middle school classmates talked about civils rights and racial issues, she had classmates who said, "I don't think I'm racist, but I haven't met a black person, so I don't know." </p>
<p>Diversity brings more points of view, and more points of view makes a richer <em>better</em> class discussion level. If you haven't ever had this, you might not miss it, but once you've had the experience, educational environments without it seem flat by comparison.</p>
<p>TrinSF, that's a great way to explain it.</p>
<p>TrinSF- Most college students have very little personal experience that is related to the topics they are discussing. </p>
<p>That is why books were created. This way, students are exposed to many different perspectives, and the people who are sharing these perspectives (authors) are from a diverse background. For instance, if the class is about Ancient Greece, Plato might have more knowledge than the poor kid sitting a few rows up. How about another example? If the class is about physics, Einstin might have more knowledge than the native american sitting next to you. If the class is about civil rights, Malcom X or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. will likely be able to shed more light than the kid behind you. </p>
<p>In this day and age, technology allows for any college student to be well aware of enough perspectives. And if they are not, the teacher is more than qualified to know about multiple perspectives. </p>
<p>I rest my case</p>
<p>I disagree strongly. That's why books were created? That's such a smug point of view. Technology has been extremely useful in teaching, but it doesn't serve to create perspective. You can't learn everything by reading it. You can't learn growing up poor, you can't learn humility, you can't learn gratitude, you can't learn what it feels like to be the subject of debilitating humiliation and discrimination by looking at the words on a page or a screen. You can't learn so many things. I'm one of these people that supposedly has an unfair advantage over you, trackstar; I'm from an "economically-disadvantaged" family. To you, that might mean my family's per capita income is less than the average of whatever. But you'll never understand what I felt like when I was young, unable to comprehend why we never went on vacations or ate the same food as other people.</p>
<p>VERY well said, yougotjohn! </p>
<p>And, I might add, that a book is only as good as your interpretation. Different experiences= different interpretations of Plato, Einstein, Malcolm X ect. There are a thousand ways to read and interpret any book.</p>
<p>"In this day and age, technology allows for any college student to be well aware of enough perspectives. And if they are not, the teacher is more than qualified to know about multiple perspectives."</p>
<p>your perspective is excruciatingly limited and I doubt any teacher can change that.</p>
<p>trackstar: you argue that you want your dream scenario to be a schoo that admits only on so-called "meritocracy" -- that no (or very little) consideration should be given to issues of "diversity" or other high-floutin' social ideals... Well there ARE schools like that. However, it's not HYPS. </p>
<p>Funny thing is the fact that the ultra selective, top tier schools INDEED have a larger institutional mission to bring together the best student body possible. That doesn't mean a class full of 2400 SAT achievers. That does mean people who will bring perspectives and strengths that will enhance the collective.</p>
<p>From HYPS point of view: my entering freshman class will look like this. You don't like it? Apply elsewhere. It's not as if they are FORCING all the 2400SATs and other like that to apply. Take your chances, if you aren't accepted, then accept that outcome. </p>
<p>Funny thing is that it just enhances the experience in others eyes too. Must be something to that.</p>
<p>And those 2400SAT rejects? They're gobbled up by the next tier, that's all.</p>
<p>But I also agree that your bias seems pretty well entrenched...</p>
<p>Regardless, good luck on your college ventures.</p>
<p>"It sure as hell doesn't justify rejecting kids who have earned a spot."</p>
<p>"earned a spot"? Wow, that's quite an assumption.</p>
<p>Most importantly, and completely setting aside URM's, legacies, or athletes, there is still not enough room in all the so-called Elites for all those who have "merited" a spot even by your own definitions, trackstar. So, some who have "earned a spot" have been, are being, will be rejected every year in favor of others who have "earned a spot." Students from private schools in the NE esp. are losing out to students just like themselves.</p>
<p>It is pointless to debate anymore. Political correctness is the easiest for you all to defend and I don't have any more energy to attack it. </p>
<p>None of us will change anything we believe, all I have to say is I can't wait to get into the real world </p>
<p>in peace,
trackstar</p>
<p>I just don't see how you can't give any ground on your beliefs with the majority trying to help you realize the flaws in your thoughts. Anyhow, I think we can all agree with you on that last point: I can't wait until you get into the real world.</p>
<p>"And those 2400SAT rejects? They're gobbled up by the next tier, that's all."</p>
<p>wow...this is a little callous, but true in a way.</p>
<p>To all those 2400 SAT, straight A+ students--don't get too invested emotionally in the decisions of admissions committees. It doesn't mean that you aren't actually the smartest person out there, even if that won't be obvious by looking at the school you are attending. There IS value in intellectual achievement. The one thing you can control is how good you are at what you do. Too often genuine passion for academics transmutes into "what college will I get into?" When they don't get the results they want, bitterness can sometimes extinguish the flame of that passion. Don't let this happen. You of all people deserve to get the most out of college. Even if you are going to a state school, you can do this. Plenty of Nobel Laureates/Fields Medalists attended state schools for undergrad.</p>
<p>Hi Collegealum: When I wrote that the 2400SAT rejects get "gobbled" up, I mean that they are highly sought after and will have many options regardless. </p>
<p>I find the "PC" argument to be a straw man. As I said, it's not as if the HYPS type schools' admissions requirements aren't well studied: they want scholars and others who bring unique attributes to the table. By doing so, they assemble vibrant and dynamic collections of some of the best and brightest. And for some reason, our culture has recognized them as being the "BEST" (whatever that means).</p>
<p>Like I said, there ARE schools extant that weigh non-statistical items very lightly. In terms of this discussion, I guess trackstar would call these the pure meritocracies. But guess what? our cultue DOESN'T rate them the "best".</p>
<p>Since what trackstar is arguing for is available, then it seems his problem is with society's praise of the HYPS-type holistic, diversity-enfused student bodies. But don't blame the school.</p>
<p>Trackstar decries the injustice those who have "earned" a spot at the "best" and get rejected yet he hates the underlying reason why they ARE considered the "best". You can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>PC? How is that? If I wanted my school to have a diverse entering class and the school next door only wants SATs and GPAs -- then so be it. But if everybody gets excited about wanting to attend my school and I'm both praised by the public and my application nos. are higher than the SAT/GPA only school -- whose fault is that? Isn't my school ALLOWED to establish its own criteria? If it were so terrible, then the marketplace would punish me accordingly and my popularity would diminish relative to the SAT/GPA only school.</p>
<p>Trackstar, did you really expect to get into an elite college, even if they all of a sudden were to base their decisions on "merit"?</p>
<p>"I applied to stanford university in palo alto in december and i got a letter few days ago that said that they approve my admission</p>
<p>is it a joke because i thought i had no shot of gettn in i decided to apply the weak before the deadline and wrote my essays in under 2 hours</p>
<p>did anybody else get a letter? my stats aint that good gpa 3.3 and sat 19 something i only do track and field since senior year and was on school gov when i was a freshmen but i think it helped that i'm 1/8 black because i put i was african american and ive also gotten like 20 grand in outside scholarships for doing nothing its really funny because my family is so much richer than the white boys i know"</p>
<p>Well I think it's pretty clear that the linked thread-starter is a phony story, merely designed to elicit response.</p>
<p>epiphany: Yup. The OP has issues, among them some racism, and an agenda of his own. As I said, biases, blindspots.</p>