|By Admissionsrep (Admissionsrep) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit|
I have heard that apps are down and that Wes is now losing more often to Tufts that they use to in cross apps. Has anyone heard this? Does anyone have any stats? I like Wes a lot and I was hoping that the "all publicity is good publicity" would hold true for the Gatekeepers.
|By Xmatt (Xmatt) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 02:57 am: Edit|
Gatekeepers came out in 2002 (I think?). Apps increased by a couple hundred from 2002 to 2003. I haven't seen any numbers for this year. I've never seen cross-admit data for any school vs. Wes with the exception of Middlebury (where it was like 55-45 in Wes's favor, but statisically negligible since only about 20 kids got into both and went to one or the other). I don't think Tufts is high on the list of schools that overlap Wes.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 12:26 am: Edit|
Gatekeepers was well-written and informative. What it revealed, however, was an obsession by admission officers with obtaining non-white applicants. In a color blind world, this would be called racial discrimination (i.e. excluding whites because of the color of their skin). Since this type of discrimination is popular, it is not only permitted at Wesleyan but presented as a badge of honor in Gatekeepers. Whether the book affected admissions probably depends in part on how many high school college counselors read the book.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 03:45 am: Edit|
yet another simplistic conservative talking-points memo comment from thinkingoutloud. very foxnews-esque. no real analysis, no real context, no real history--just more facile comments for the ears (and eyes) of other facile bigoted thinkers masquerading as analytical defenders of fairness and equality. see some of thinkingoutloud's comments on other threads. it's people like him who like to point fingers at liberals and their "agendas" or obsessions. search for his posts. see his lame comments. understand HIS agenda.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 08:47 am: Edit|
Yet another simplistic liberal talking-points memo comment from Ann of Green Gables. She cannot challenge the point made (has she even read the book?) so she simply calls other people names and suggest they must be bigoted thinkers. After all only bigots could disagree with liberals like Annakat who is the only one who knows what is fair and equal. Her post reads like a something from CNN. Her comments are really lame. SHE has an agenda. She complains that there is no real analysis, no real context, no real history. I guess she wants a dissertation on a message board? Is that crazy or what? Like many liberals, Ann cannot refute the point, so she just demeans her opponent. In case anyone out there is watching, Ann and her technique is an example of the origins of political correctness.
|By Rhkid005 (Rhkid005) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit|
Think what you want about affirmative action: Wesleyan is not the only school that practices it (by far). Most schools have it, and use it just as much (if not more) than Wesleyan does.
ARGH. I read the book, and while I agree that one of the applicants should have been treated more harshly, although she wasn't just treated well because of her race. She was treated well because of her BACKGROUND, which included but was not limited to her race. She also came from an inner-city, low-income background, and neither of her parents went to college.
ARGH. I am white, and will also "suffer" from AA. HOWEVER, STOP COMPLAINING. Blacks have suffered centuries of oppression, whereas whites are now having a bit of a tougher time of getting into their top-choice colleges. Our "suffering" does not even compare to theirs.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit|
compare my posts with thinkingoutloud's. compare the arguments and conclusions we make. i've backed up my point of view, he still hasn't done the same for his. some of his posts are so silly (see his post regarding Anthony Marx at amherst---especially see his conclusion about "sticking with your own kind"). with this last post, he is once again doing what he does best--being a parrot. just don't parrot me, thinkingoutloud, stick to the ann coulters, bill o'reilly's and rush limbaughs for your material. i'm waiting for a thought-out, meaty answer from you. you're just about sound bites. your posts are proof of that. perhaps i shouldn't engage people like you because that's all you want--an opportunity to scream your simplistic rants over and over again, hoping someone will listen. but i'm not gonna let you get away with it. like i said, i've made my arguments many times (see my posts), while you still haven't gotten beyond your brief statements (see your posts). you consider any analysis, specificity, or context in an answer to your questions or issues as not being able to refute your point of view--i guess you want a sound bite in response to your sound bite? i'm trying to suppress your speech? that's a laugh. i want you to expand your arguments. come on, thinkingoutloud, let's hear it, let's see it.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 07:12 pm: Edit|
You clearly enjoy calling others names and then rambling on about yourself. I can certainly start calling you names as well. We can have a wonderful spitting contest. Unfortunately, others on the board may not appreciate it. I suggest we agree that you won't comment on my posts and I won't comment on your posts. There is nothing stopping you from seeing Thinkingoutloud and skipping over it. That is what I do when I see the posts of someone for whom I know I will not agree. Do you agree?
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|