3 ms·

> Anyone who lives in a neighborhood with a high proportion of kids making it to the Ivy league and other top schools knows exactly what this guy is talking abo

by csa 1mo ago

> Anyone who lives in a neighborhood with a high proportion of kids making it to the Ivy league and other top schools knows exactly what this guy is talking about. The person whose view you endorse supports what many parents believe. I’ve seen how the sausage is made, and he has it (mostly) wrong. Many people seem to think that being more above average is the key to elite school admissions. It helps, and it’s directionally correct (one needs to show academic competence), but the key is to be truly exceptional in something. Five extracurriculars is almost the same as one or even none if there was no demonstration of exceptional performance or leadership. Taking the max load of AP classes versus just a few is not as helpful as people seem to think. Using one’s time to do something unique and/or exceptional would be time much better spent. I beat this drum as often as I can here and elsewhere, but the upper middle class folks in that particular rat race don’t seem interested in hearing what I’m saying.

verall 1mo ago
It's worse, this is mostly just to be a shoe-in for a good state school, with a "maybe I'll get lucky and an ivy will accept anyways", unless you're really exception in at least one of these areas. > Using one’s time to do something unique and/or exceptional would be time much better spent. The fact is that most high schoolers are just not unique or exceptional but still want a shot to break out of currently very poor job prospects or hourly labor. I think many of these kids are capable of much more once they have some time to grow up, but the system is such that they need to show their color by roughly 17 to be "exceptional" along the traditional route. I was in high school not that long ago, I understood the point you make then, but it didn't make me unique or exceptional. Most kids just want to be good enough, to do okay.
s1artibartfast 1mo ago
The catch is that it is harder to brute force being truly exceptional in one thing. That often requires talent and predisposition. Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents.
- csa 1mo ago
  > The catch is that it is harder to brute force being truly exceptional in one thing. That often requires talent and predisposition. That’s true for sports, music, and academics, but I think “grinding” exceptional leadership can be a thing. It’s very learnable, and effort often times makes the difference. Some simple examples I’ve seen in various forms: - starting a meaningful business or non-profit - starting a meaningful arts or sports experience (literary magazine, regional film festival, regional sports event/tournament, etc.) - many/most substantial Eagle Scout projects (not all are substantial enough) The heuristic I tell people to use is this — the reader of the application will go “no kidding… I’d really like to talk to this person and learn more about this” (aka “have a beer with them” type of sentiment) > Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents. See above… grind at the right thing. Full-time grinding academics is a fools errand unless the applicant can demonstrate their competence at a regional level, if not national or international level.
  - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
    Still seems like a much more risky and challenging strategy with low chance of success. What is the chance that a mediocre or talentless student can grind Regional success? What is the chance that mediocre and talentless parents can support that? Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools. I've seen several ESL immigrant parents simply lock their kids up and make them study their way to Berkeley, despite having never graduated high school themselves.
    - csa 1mo ago
      > Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools. Yeah. We are talking about different types of schools. For one, Cal and UCLA both admit a lot of students. It’s just not as competitive. Additionally, it’s fairly easy for a decent grinder student to go to a feeder JuCo and transfer to either of these schools (which would be a fine outcome for the “ESL immigrant parents” you gave as an example). Second, while Cal and UCLA are top-tier public schools (along with schools like UMich, UVa, and UTexas), I don’t consider them elite in terms of undergrad programs [1]. Any resident of California who gets into Stanford or an Ivy would be able to get into either of those (excepting anomalies like unusually high departmental requirements at some UC schools like Cal). So sure, if the goal (esp. for California residents) is to get into a UC school, going the grinder route is fine — overkill in most cases, but fine. This will be less than ideal if they are also considering elite schools like Stanford or Ivies. [1] What makes an undergrad program elite? The short answer is drive and the ability to get things done. If you take the top 1000 admits from Stanford and compare them to the top 1000 admits at Cal, you may not see much difference in terms of raw intellect — plenty of super smart people in both groups. But the Stanford students will be more ambitious, they will push each other much harder (and in most cases learn more), and they will achieve more than the Cal students. Note that this isn’t a knock on Cal students — it’s just a different way of approaching school and life that is quite apparent when you interact with enough folks from each group. Stanford, an elite school, can and does select for these traits. Cal just can’t be as picky due to the large number of admits and certain state policies.
pickleRick243 1mo ago
It's because it's risky and also requires actually being exceptional at something. So people choose the arduous brute force method because they know they can do it and it has a lower bound in terms of outcome. In any case, this isn't unique to college admissions. The same story plays out in terms of career and all facets of life.
SR2Z 1mo ago
Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test scores and coursework. At some point, when the competition are starting nonprofits and playing Carnegie Hall at 13, you either end up getting in effortlessly or running the rat race.
- csa 1mo ago
  > Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test scores and coursework. Please don’t spread propaganda. I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives. A generous interpretation supporting your thesis is that AA spots took away spots from very marginal asian and white students. Marginal asian and white admits even at Harvard are usually not terribly impressive, such that I’m not sure that this trade is a loss for the school or the student body. An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates. The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”). People act like so many deserving asians and/or whites were denied spots due to AA, when the reality is that the folks who theoretically “lost” a spot were already so marginal that admission was a bit of a crapshoot anyway. They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality.
  - SR2Z 1mo ago
    > I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Harvard has used tests of "character" to exclude racial and religious minorities for more than 100 years. The heart of this scandal is another test of "character" that systematically disadvantaged Asian kids. Call me misinformed if you want, but I'm going to accuse you of sticking your head in the sand. > Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives. Please actually respond to what I'm saying. I have had these opinions for a while, definitely before the current president. I think I'm pretty well-informed (at least as well-informed as you!) > An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates. I know lots of Asian kids who volunteered, founded clubs, participated in extracurriculars, had excellent test scores, and were still rejected by Harvard. I know plenty non-Asian kids who did half that and got in. I don't believe that Asian students are systemically less personable than non-Asian kids; I do believe that a sufficiently woke admissions office can hold a lot of shitty racist opinions about Asian people. > That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”). So that's why Asian admits need to score 150 points higher than white kids on their SAT to get in at Harvard? Because everything else about them like their personality and achievements outside of school are so "marginal?" > The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. > They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality. The Supreme Court correctly called a spade a spade because there was obvious racial discrimination in those admissions processes. When an Asian kid needs to score 450 more points on the SAT than a black kid to get in, there is no other reasonable conclusion. I am finding a lot of your statements to also be sort of offensive. Asian kids are just as witty, personable, community-oriented, etc. as anyone else. Harvard lost because THEY COULD NOT PROVE OTHERWISE. Discrimination based on that stuff is legal, discrimination based on race is not - all that Harvard actually had to do was prove this stuff you're saying, and they couldn't.

by csa 1mo ago

verall 1mo ago

It's worse, this is mostly just to be a shoe-in for a good state school, with a "maybe I'll get lucky and an ivy will accept anyways", unless you're really exception in at least one of these areas. > Using one’s time to do something unique and/or exceptional would be time much better spent. The fact is that most high schoolers are just not unique or exceptional but still want a shot to break out of currently very poor job prospects or hourly labor. I think many of these kids are capable of much more once they have some time to grow up, but the system is such that they need to show their color by roughly 17 to be "exceptional" along the traditional route. I was in high school not that long ago, I understood the point you make then, but it didn't make me unique or exceptional. Most kids just want to be good enough, to do okay.

s1artibartfast 1mo ago

The catch is that it is harder to brute force being truly exceptional in one thing. That often requires talent and predisposition. Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents.

csa 1mo ago
> The catch is that it is harder to brute force being truly exceptional in one thing. That often requires talent and predisposition. That’s true for sports, music, and academics, but I think “grinding” exceptional leadership can be a thing. It’s very learnable, and effort often times makes the difference. Some simple examples I’ve seen in various forms: - starting a meaningful business or non-profit - starting a meaningful arts or sports experience (literary magazine, regional film festival, regional sports event/tournament, etc.) - many/most substantial Eagle Scout projects (not all are substantial enough) The heuristic I tell people to use is this — the reader of the application will go “no kidding… I’d really like to talk to this person and learn more about this” (aka “have a beer with them” type of sentiment) > Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents. See above… grind at the right thing. Full-time grinding academics is a fools errand unless the applicant can demonstrate their competence at a regional level, if not national or international level.
- s1artibartfast 1mo ago
  Still seems like a much more risky and challenging strategy with low chance of success. What is the chance that a mediocre or talentless student can grind Regional success? What is the chance that mediocre and talentless parents can support that? Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools. I've seen several ESL immigrant parents simply lock their kids up and make them study their way to Berkeley, despite having never graduated high school themselves.
  - csa 1mo ago
    > Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools. Yeah. We are talking about different types of schools. For one, Cal and UCLA both admit a lot of students. It’s just not as competitive. Additionally, it’s fairly easy for a decent grinder student to go to a feeder JuCo and transfer to either of these schools (which would be a fine outcome for the “ESL immigrant parents” you gave as an example). Second, while Cal and UCLA are top-tier public schools (along with schools like UMich, UVa, and UTexas), I don’t consider them elite in terms of undergrad programs [1]. Any resident of California who gets into Stanford or an Ivy would be able to get into either of those (excepting anomalies like unusually high departmental requirements at some UC schools like Cal). So sure, if the goal (esp. for California residents) is to get into a UC school, going the grinder route is fine — overkill in most cases, but fine. This will be less than ideal if they are also considering elite schools like Stanford or Ivies. [1] What makes an undergrad program elite? The short answer is drive and the ability to get things done. If you take the top 1000 admits from Stanford and compare them to the top 1000 admits at Cal, you may not see much difference in terms of raw intellect — plenty of super smart people in both groups. But the Stanford students will be more ambitious, they will push each other much harder (and in most cases learn more), and they will achieve more than the Cal students. Note that this isn’t a knock on Cal students — it’s just a different way of approaching school and life that is quite apparent when you interact with enough folks from each group. Stanford, an elite school, can and does select for these traits. Cal just can’t be as picky due to the large number of admits and certain state policies.

pickleRick243 1mo ago

It's because it's risky and also requires actually being exceptional at something. So people choose the arduous brute force method because they know they can do it and it has a lower bound in terms of outcome. In any case, this isn't unique to college admissions. The same story plays out in terms of career and all facets of life.

SR2Z 1mo ago

Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test scores and coursework. At some point, when the competition are starting nonprofits and playing Carnegie Hall at 13, you either end up getting in effortlessly or running the rat race.

csa 1mo ago
> Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test scores and coursework. Please don’t spread propaganda. I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives. A generous interpretation supporting your thesis is that AA spots took away spots from very marginal asian and white students. Marginal asian and white admits even at Harvard are usually not terribly impressive, such that I’m not sure that this trade is a loss for the school or the student body. An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates. The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”). People act like so many deserving asians and/or whites were denied spots due to AA, when the reality is that the folks who theoretically “lost” a spot were already so marginal that admission was a bit of a crapshoot anyway. They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality.
- SR2Z 1mo ago
  > I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Harvard has used tests of "character" to exclude racial and religious minorities for more than 100 years. The heart of this scandal is another test of "character" that systematically disadvantaged Asian kids. Call me misinformed if you want, but I'm going to accuse you of sticking your head in the sand. > Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives. Please actually respond to what I'm saying. I have had these opinions for a while, definitely before the current president. I think I'm pretty well-informed (at least as well-informed as you!) > An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates. I know lots of Asian kids who volunteered, founded clubs, participated in extracurriculars, had excellent test scores, and were still rejected by Harvard. I know plenty non-Asian kids who did half that and got in. I don't believe that Asian students are systemically less personable than non-Asian kids; I do believe that a sufficiently woke admissions office can hold a lot of shitty racist opinions about Asian people. > That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”). So that's why Asian admits need to score 150 points higher than white kids on their SAT to get in at Harvard? Because everything else about them like their personality and achievements outside of school are so "marginal?" > The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. > They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality. The Supreme Court correctly called a spade a spade because there was obvious racial discrimination in those admissions processes. When an Asian kid needs to score 450 more points on the SAT than a black kid to get in, there is no other reasonable conclusion. I am finding a lot of your statements to also be sort of offensive. Asian kids are just as witty, personable, community-oriented, etc. as anyone else. Harvard lost because THEY COULD NOT PROVE OTHERWISE. Discrimination based on that stuff is legal, discrimination based on race is not - all that Harvard actually had to do was prove this stuff you're saying, and they couldn't.