Isn’t it also compounded by the fact that the truly outstanding black / Hispanic students (in testing or in extracurricular) often receive $ to attend the elite $60-70k a year schools? So they’re losing out on talent as well. I knew a couple 1550+ SAT (so completely qualified) “under”represented minorities (all from wealthy families) at my college and they tended to be either Hispanics who looked white or African / Caribbean (descent)
Have affirmative action be class instead of race driven. It’ll still benefit underrepresented minorities more but in a way I’m fine with since it also recognizes the talent of poor Asians / white
You’re talking about a handful.
Stuyvesant has about 3200 kids. about 2200 are Asian. About 50-75 are black.
You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but the reality is Asians dramatically outperform blacks academically. That’s why DEI advocates have to stack the deck for the latter while pretending the former doesn’t exist.
I know it’s a very small amount but it’s not 0 either. Negligible but non-zero
New York City has the largest black population in the country. There are at least 1.5x as many blacks as Asians and these are the demographics in the top public high school:
AI Overview
Stuyvesant High School in New York City is a highly competitive public school with a diverse student body
. Student demographics Race: 71% Asian, 17% White, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black, <1% Native American or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Stuyvesant bases admission solely on a students ability to pass a test.
Schools like Harvard and Yale aren't interested in good test takers. They want candidates who are likely to succeed in a corporate setting or succeed in business or succeed in other endeavors. Their why they have an Interview process.
Their goal is not diversity. Their goal is to have alumni who are more likely to contribute big bucks to Harvard's already overflowing coffers.
I have been in corporate America for over a decade. My department hires college interns every summer. The most productive interns are rarely the ones with high GPAs. Succeeding in a corporate settings requires other intangible factors that cannot be measured by a test. Many of these good test takers often lack the creativity needed to solve the kind of problems that arise in a corporate setting. Thats why Harvard has an Interview process. This is a concept that narrow minded right wingers can't understand.
If I lived in New York, none of my kids would apply to go to Stuyvesant.
New York City has the largest black population in the country. There are at least 1.5x as many blacks as Asians and these are the demographics in the top public high school:
AI Overview
Stuyvesant High School in New York City is a highly competitive public school with a diverse student body
. Student demographics Race: 71% Asian, 17% White, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black, <1% Native American or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Stuyvesant bases admission solely on a students ability to pass a test.
Schools like Harvard and Yale aren't interested in good test takers. They want candidates who are likely to succeed in a corporate setting or succeed in business or succeed in other endeavors. Their why they have an Interview process.
Their goal is not diversity. Their goal is to have alumni who are more likely to contribute big bucks to Harvard's already overflowing coffers.
I have been in corporate America for over a decade. My department hires college interns every summer. The most productive interns are rarely the ones with high GPAs. Succeeding in a corporate settings requires other intangible factors that cannot be measured by a test. Many of these good test takers often lack the creativity needed to solve the kind of problems that arise in a corporate setting. Thats why Harvard has an Interview process. This is a concept that narrow minded right wingers can't understand.
If I lived in New York, none of my kids would apply to go to Stuyvesant.
How dare you think your value to a school or society is anything more than a test score!
Stuyvesant bases admission solely on a students ability to pass a test.
Schools like Harvard and Yale aren't interested in good test takers. They want candidates who are likely to succeed in a corporate setting or succeed in business or succeed in other endeavors. Their why they have an Interview process.
Their goal is not diversity. Their goal is to have alumni who are more likely to contribute big bucks to Harvard's already overflowing coffers.
I have been in corporate America for over a decade. My department hires college interns every summer. The most productive interns are rarely the ones with high GPAs. Succeeding in a corporate settings requires other intangible factors that cannot be measured by a test. Many of these good test takers often lack the creativity needed to solve the kind of problems that arise in a corporate setting. Thats why Harvard has an Interview process. This is a concept that narrow minded right wingers can't understand.
If I lived in New York, none of my kids would apply to go to Stuyvesant.
How dare you think your value to a school or society is anything more than a test score!
Class Valedictorians aka good test takers rarely become millionaires. Harvard knows this. Harvard wants future millionaires. Thats why they dont base admissions on test scores only.
New York City has the largest black population in the country. There are at least 1.5x as many blacks as Asians and these are the demographics in the top public high school:
AI Overview
Stuyvesant High School in New York City is a highly competitive public school with a diverse student body
. Student demographics Race: 71% Asian, 17% White, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black, <1% Native American or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Stuyvesant bases admission solely on a students ability to pass a test.
Schools like Harvard and Yale aren't interested in good test takers. They want candidates who are likely to succeed in a corporate setting or succeed in business or succeed in other endeavors. Their why they have an Interview process.
Their goal is not diversity. Their goal is to have alumni who are more likely to contribute big bucks to Harvard's already overflowing coffers.
I have been in corporate America for over a decade. My department hires college interns every summer. The most productive interns are rarely the ones with high GPAs. Succeeding in a corporate settings requires other intangible factors that cannot be measured by a test. Many of these good test takers often lack the creativity needed to solve the kind of problems that arise in a corporate setting. Thats why Harvard has an Interview process. This is a concept that narrow minded right wingers can't understand.
If I lived in New York, none of my kids would apply to go to Stuyvesant.
Your meltdown assumes kids who are good test takers aren’t good at anything else. Yeah a few brainiacs at the very top might not have great social skills but they’re outliers. Most of the kids in the middle do.
“At Harvard, Stuyvesant outperformed the national acceptance average of five percent by a near-double nine percent, out of those who applied. Take another prestigious university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which has a national admissions rate of just over four percent. Despite this, Stuyvesant students have a jaw-dropping 14 percent acceptance rate of those who applied, a 250 percent boost over the norm.”
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Stuyvesant bases admission solely on a students ability to pass a test.
Schools like Harvard and Yale aren't interested in good test takers. They want candidates who are likely to succeed in a corporate setting or succeed in business or succeed in other endeavors. Their why they have an Interview process.
Their goal is not diversity. Their goal is to have alumni who are more likely to contribute big bucks to Harvard's already overflowing coffers.
I have been in corporate America for over a decade. My department hires college interns every summer. The most productive interns are rarely the ones with high GPAs. Succeeding in a corporate settings requires other intangible factors that cannot be measured by a test. Many of these good test takers often lack the creativity needed to solve the kind of problems that arise in a corporate setting. Thats why Harvard has an Interview process. This is a concept that narrow minded right wingers can't understand.
If I lived in New York, none of my kids would apply to go to Stuyvesant.
How dare you think your value to a school or society is anything more than a test score!
Stuyvesant bases admission solely on a students ability to pass a test.
Schools like Harvard and Yale aren't interested in good test takers. They want candidates who are likely to succeed in a corporate setting or succeed in business or succeed in other endeavors. Their why they have an Interview process.
Their goal is not diversity. Their goal is to have alumni who are more likely to contribute big bucks to Harvard's already overflowing coffers.
I have been in corporate America for over a decade. My department hires college interns every summer. The most productive interns are rarely the ones with high GPAs. Succeeding in a corporate settings requires other intangible factors that cannot be measured by a test. Many of these good test takers often lack the creativity needed to solve the kind of problems that arise in a corporate setting. Thats why Harvard has an Interview process. This is a concept that narrow minded right wingers can't understand.
If I lived in New York, none of my kids would apply to go to Stuyvesant.
Your meltdown assumes kids who are good test takers aren’t good at anything else. Yeah a few brainiacs at the very top might not have great social skills but they’re outliers. Most of the kids in the middle do.
“At Harvard, Stuyvesant outperformed the national acceptance average of five percent by a near-double nine percent, out of those who applied. Take another prestigious university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which has a national admissions rate of just over four percent. Despite this, Stuyvesant students have a jaw-dropping 14 percent acceptance rate of those who applied, a 250 percent boost over the norm.”
You are a typical right winger who can't understand basic concepts. Not once did I say that good test takers are not good at anything else. I said being a good test taker is not the only criteria that determines future success.
I base my observations on data, not on blind ideology like you a typical right winger. Studies have shown that good test takers tend not to be visionaries. The study cited below for example looked at 700 millionaires and found that they werent good students. Their average GPA was 2.9. Again thats why Harvard and Yale dont base admissions solely on the ability to pass the SAT
Your greatest strength can be your greatest weakness — which is why your high school valedictorian is unlikely ever to show up on a list of the wealthiest and most successful people. “[Valedictorians] do well, but they don’t...
How dare you think your value to a school or society is anything more than a test score!
Class Valedictorians aka good test takers rarely become millionaires. Harvard knows this. Harvard wants future millionaires. Thats why they dont base admissions on test scores only.
In reality, Harvard and other "elite" schools want students from wealthy backgrounds to go there. Merit-based has always been BS. It's all about how wealthy their families are.
oh, so now we want to tinker with admissions until (asian) racial percentages match the population demographics? i thought doing that for blacks and hispanics was illegal. hmmmm. aren't you the people who think statistical measures of discrimination are insufficient and you need proof the numbers somehow reflect actual racism?
my understanding is a lot of these schools decided -- rightly -- to start considering personal circumstances. i grew up poor. personal circumstances could happen to anyone. personal circumstances aren't specifically about race.
if it's not about racial discrimination, then we're done.
Your meltdown assumes kids who are good test takers aren’t good at anything else. Yeah a few brainiacs at the very top might not have great social skills but they’re outliers. Most of the kids in the middle do.
“At Harvard, Stuyvesant outperformed the national acceptance average of five percent by a near-double nine percent, out of those who applied. Take another prestigious university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which has a national admissions rate of just over four percent. Despite this, Stuyvesant students have a jaw-dropping 14 percent acceptance rate of those who applied, a 250 percent boost over the norm.”
You are a typical right winger who can't understand basic concepts. Not once did I say that good test takers are not good at anything else. I said being a good test taker is not the only criteria that determines future success.
I base my observations on data, not on blind ideology like you a typical right winger. Studies have shown that good test takers tend not to be visionaries. The study cited below for example looked at 700 millionaires and found that they werent good students. Their average GPA was 2.9. Again thats why Harvard and Yale dont base admissions solely on the ability to pass the SAT
Your infantile argument assumes that the people in Stuyvesant are there strictly because they’re good test takers. They are there because they’re smart hard-working kids and as a result did very well on the test.
For such a scary genius, you don’t seem to understand, cause and effect.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
Class Valedictorians aka good test takers rarely become millionaires. Harvard knows this. Harvard wants future millionaires. Thats why they dont base admissions on test scores only.
In reality, Harvard and other "elite" schools want students from wealthy backgrounds to go there. Merit-based has always been BS. It's all about how wealthy their families are.
Definitely helps to be a legacy who is also a big donor.
Your meltdown assumes kids who are good test takers aren’t good at anything else. Yeah a few brainiacs at the very top might not have great social skills but they’re outliers. Most of the kids in the middle do.
“At Harvard, Stuyvesant outperformed the national acceptance average of five percent by a near-double nine percent, out of those who applied. Take another prestigious university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which has a national admissions rate of just over four percent. Despite this, Stuyvesant students have a jaw-dropping 14 percent acceptance rate of those who applied, a 250 percent boost over the norm.”
You are a typical right winger who can't understand basic concepts. Not once did I say that good test takers are not good at anything else. I said being a good test taker is not the only criteria that determines future success.
I base my observations on data, not on blind ideology like you a typical right winger. Studies have shown that good test takers tend not to be visionaries. The study cited below for example looked at 700 millionaires and found that they werent good students. Their average GPA was 2.9. Again thats why Harvard and Yale dont base admissions solely on the ability to pass the SAT
oh, so now we want to tinker with admissions until (asian) racial percentages match the population demographics? i thought doing that for blacks and hispanics was illegal. hmmmm. aren't you the people who think statistical measures of discrimination are insufficient and you need proof the numbers somehow reflect actual racism?
my understanding is a lot of these schools decided -- rightly -- to start considering personal circumstances. i grew up poor. personal circumstances could happen to anyone. personal circumstances aren't specifically about race.
if it's not about racial discrimination, then we're done.
"Elite" schools won't want you anyways since you're poor. These schools don't accept based on merit. It's more about how wealthy your family is. You won't fit in either as these schools are littered with ultra-wealthy students where people who you thought were rich growing up will seem extremely average at these "elite" schools.
Coming from wealthy family is the number 1 indicator of how wealthy you're going to be. You have probably heard about majority of millionaires are self-made and financial background doesn't matter. Well, that is very statistically misleading. Everyday, there are more and more millionaires in this world. So, of course, there will be more millionaires coming from less-fortunate background. But if you look at the percentage of wealthy families producing millionaire off springs, it's shocking how easy they have it made compared to the percentage of less fortunate making to the millionaire status.
So, anyways, it's all about the money and how wealthy your family is.
oh, so now we want to tinker with admissions until (asian) racial percentages match the population demographics? i thought doing that for blacks and hispanics was illegal. hmmmm. aren't you the people who think statistical measures of discrimination are insufficient and you need proof the numbers somehow reflect actual racism?
my understanding is a lot of these schools decided -- rightly -- to start considering personal circumstances. i grew up poor. personal circumstances could happen to anyone. personal circumstances aren't specifically about race.
if it's not about racial discrimination, then we're done.
What I believe is that colleges shouldn’t keep tinkering with admissions until they achieve their desired demographics. Make it due to merit. If that doesn’t match the population, c’est la vie
oh, so now we want to tinker with admissions until (asian) racial percentages match the population demographics? i thought doing that for blacks and hispanics was illegal. hmmmm. aren't you the people who think statistical measures of discrimination are insufficient and you need proof the numbers somehow reflect actual racism?
my understanding is a lot of these schools decided -- rightly -- to start considering personal circumstances. i grew up poor. personal circumstances could happen to anyone. personal circumstances aren't specifically about race.
if it's not about racial discrimination, then we're done.
"Elite" schools won't want you anyways since you're poor. These schools don't accept based on merit. It's more about how wealthy your family is. You won't fit in either as these schools are littered with ultra-wealthy students where people who you thought were rich growing up will seem extremely average at these "elite" schools.
Coming from wealthy family is the number 1 indicator of how wealthy you're going to be. You have probably heard about majority of millionaires are self-made and financial background doesn't matter. Well, that is very statistically misleading. Everyday, there are more and more millionaires in this world. So, of course, there will be more millionaires coming from less-fortunate background. But if you look at the percentage of wealthy families producing millionaire off springs, it's shocking how easy they have it made compared to the percentage of less fortunate making to the millionaire status.
So, anyways, it's all about the money and how wealthy your family is.
To clarify, these "elite" schools will allow some poor people in as they have to give hope to the working class that they can be rich too. And show that it's merit-based. So, I don't mean as absolute that it's not totally merit-based. But overwhelmingly, it's not.
oh, so now we want to tinker with admissions until (asian) racial percentages match the population demographics? i thought doing that for blacks and hispanics was illegal. hmmmm. aren't you the people who think statistical measures of discrimination are insufficient and you need proof the numbers somehow reflect actual racism?
my understanding is a lot of these schools decided -- rightly -- to start considering personal circumstances. i grew up poor. personal circumstances could happen to anyone. personal circumstances aren't specifically about race.
if it's not about racial discrimination, then we're done.
What I believe is that colleges shouldn’t keep tinkering with admissions until they achieve their desired demographics. Make it due to merit. If that doesn’t match the population, c’est la vie
Unless it doesn’t match my desired % of whites and asians. Then not c’est la vie!
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
