- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: You be the admissions director
Posted on 9/22/14 at 4:14 pm to Zach
Posted on 9/22/14 at 4:14 pm to Zach
I suppose back in the day before AA, the rich and connected justified their admissions over the "lessers" the same way. Maybe it was something in their essay, or maybe their "contributions to the community."
Whoever said a 36 on the ACT is an automatic admission is full of shite.
Whoever said a 36 on the ACT is an automatic admission is full of shite.
1
Posted on 9/22/14 at 4:56 pm to son of arlo
quote:
I could have guessed which poster would have squealed
Any poster with a minimal amount critical thinking ability could have squealed on this one. OP was that bad.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 5:11 pm to son of arlo
quote:
Whoever said a 36 on the ACT is an automatic admission is full of shite.
It was Houston. He has no idea what he's talking about. Neither does Med Grind. But I'm tired of dealing with his stupidity. I'm assuming he's on AFF action and it hits a nerve. Checking out for the night. You guys have at it. Zach will be checking in late tomorrow afternoon because of the golf game.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 5:20 pm to tokenBoiler
quote:Would be worth taking another look at the scatter graph in this thread. I can tell you point blank, plenty of kids who are far beyond "smart enough to get in," do not get in. There is no question as to subjectivity of the admission process. The only question is what drives it and why?
If you are smart enough to get in, that's it. You're in, and they will ensure you can afford it.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 5:40 pm to Zach
Here is what I'll say. I know three people who got 36 ACT scores... and they got admitted into every school they applied.
If a college won't take someone with a 36 ACT (or max SAT score), then our educational system is in worse shape than I thought.
But my overall point remains. A school is NOT going to take an inferior candiate (no matter how they rank the kids) over a superior one. What will happen, is, poor, smart kids will get in, and not pay anything to attend, while rich, smart kids will have to pay through the nose.
I don't know if your affirmative action comment was directed toward me or the other poster... but my skin is pretty darn white.
If a college won't take someone with a 36 ACT (or max SAT score), then our educational system is in worse shape than I thought.
But my overall point remains. A school is NOT going to take an inferior candiate (no matter how they rank the kids) over a superior one. What will happen, is, poor, smart kids will get in, and not pay anything to attend, while rich, smart kids will have to pay through the nose.
I don't know if your affirmative action comment was directed toward me or the other poster... but my skin is pretty darn white.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 5:45 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
A school is NOT going to take an inferior candiate (no matter how they rank the kids) over a superior one.
You're inferior if you believe that. What else are needs-based or race based admissions slots for? Such criteria would not exist if they were only interested in getting the best students.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 5:50 pm to tokenBoiler
quote:I think they're pretty obvious myself.
OP is spreading complete bull shite for reasons known only to himself.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 5:52 pm to Asgard Device
quote:They are interested in getting the "best" students. Their subjective guess is "best" comes in the form of a diverse student body. Best is not always brightest.
if they were only interested in getting the best students.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 5:54 pm to Asgard Device
Yeah, the only elite school of which I am aware (and is regularly cited as such) that goes almost strictly by the numbers is Caltech. They don't care if your daddy is a billionaire nor do they care if your mama and you came in off the boat when you were 6 and she works 3 jobs to put food on the table.
Most other elite schools are interested in "making a class", with all that entails. I can see 1600 SATs getting rejected in that scenario.
1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA in a college preparatory curriculum? Somebody is going to have to give me specific examples of that because that surely would have made at least the local papers for that student.
Most other elite schools are interested in "making a class", with all that entails. I can see 1600 SATs getting rejected in that scenario.
1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA in a college preparatory curriculum? Somebody is going to have to give me specific examples of that because that surely would have made at least the local papers for that student.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 6:00 pm to Walking the Earth
quote:IRL, I know of nearly that exact example, if you add in a ton of extracurriculars, student leadership, athletics, etc. The demographics did not work.
1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA in a college preparatory curriculum? Somebody is going to have to give me specific examples of that because that surely would have made at least the local papers for that student.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 6:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
They are interested in getting the "best" students. Their subjective guess is "best" comes in the form of a diverse student body. Best is not always brightest.
Doesn't change the fact that you're choosing academically inferior INDIVIDUALS in order to accomplish this.
At some point a decision is made to accept a black/poor student over a white/middle-class student with better scores - how ever slight those differences may have been.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 6:08 pm to Asgard Device
quote:But the selection committees would argue an academic blemish does not equate to inferior overall.
you're choosing academically inferior INDIVIDUALS
Posted on 9/22/14 at 6:09 pm to NC_Tigah
I would have to know more to the point of prying because that sounds weird for a "superstar" to get rejected, regardless of skin color or income level. Superstars are in their own category; it's the merely very accomplished that compete with each other and with the various diversity/legacy/recruited athlete cases
What schools did he apply to and get rejected. Was he really a 1600, 4.0? AP classes?
What schools did he apply to and get rejected. Was he really a 1600, 4.0? AP classes?
Posted on 9/22/14 at 6:11 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
A school is NOT going to take an inferior candiate (no matter how they rank the kids) over a superior one.
Happens all the time at law schools admissions. The thing is it isn't the super superior student with the 180 LSAT that doesn't get an offer, it's the kid that is at the various low ends of the schools typical admission spectrum. Ie the lowest non diversity admission is 168 but the diversity selection is a 160. The jump can be pretty stark at that juncture.
Btw not sure if posted but you could make a "meritocracy" argument for a lower scoring individual. There is certainly "merit" to doing "more with less" but of course what is an acceptable lower accomplishment is highly subjective.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 6:51 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
don't know if your affirmative action comment was directed toward me or the other poster... but my skin is pretty darn white.
No it was directed at me. That gets thrown around every so often when I embarrass people in debates and they have nothing else to go to.Posted on 9/22/14 at 8:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But the selection committees would argue an academic blemish does not equate to inferior overall.
This is where racism enters into the equation.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 8:28 pm to NC_Tigah
You're right. I was only addressing the financial aid aspect. I should have just said something like, "Once you're accepted, you're in, that's it". Smart is part of it, but not all of it, but my point was that smarter doesn't get you more financial aid at Harvard, needing more does.
quote:
Would be worth taking another look at the scatter graph in this thread. I can tell you point blank, plenty of kids who are far beyond "smart enough to get in," do not get in. There is no question as to subjectivity of the admission process. The only question is what drives it and why?
Posted on 9/22/14 at 8:29 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:The difference between a 160 and a 168 is far from stark. Half of that difference can be a single bad deduction in a logic game.
The thing is it isn't the super superior student with the 180 LSAT that doesn't get an offer, it's the kid that is at the various low ends of the schools typical admission spectrum. Ie the lowest non diversity admission is 168 but the diversity selection is a 160. The jump can be pretty stark at that juncture.
(And LSAT is a single component of the admissions matrix, one which in the rosiest of studies administered by LSAC is correlated at a .36 coefficient with first-year grades and drops to noise after that.)
Posted on 9/22/14 at 9:00 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
However understand that very good scores from a student going to a poor high school means much more than very good scores from a prep school.
Not the case at all
Posted on 9/22/14 at 9:05 pm to Iosh
quote:There are major differences. Take a look at the Harvard Admissions Scattergraph posted earlier by anc.
The difference between a 160 and a 168 is far from stark. Half of that difference can be a single bad deduction in a logic game.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News