thatguy2016
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2017
- Messages
- 11,006
- Reaction score
- 4,078
WF isn't going back to a need-blind approach
I am absolutely not defending Wake's place on this list. But I do want to note that there is some separation between students being admitted and students choosing to attend. While finances may be a huge reason for a kid who chooses not to attend, there may certainly be other reasons as well.Didn't Wake get rid of "need-blind" admissions years ago? So whether or not someone can pay factors into whether or not they get accepted.
Rafi, I think you're asking the wrong question. Athletic programs are trying to win championships. They're not trying to provide "socioeconomic diversity" for the entire university. That's patronizing as well.
The question is if schools like Wake and Duke are rejecting low-income applicants who would be accepted otherwise.
The question assumes kids on Pell Grants aren't "perfectly qualified."
(It also assumes there's such a thing as "perfectly qualified" as well.)
You should be forced to attend the socioeconomic nirvana of NC State.probably legacy kids like me
I just wrote that Wake should go to need blind admissions.lol death taxes and rafi going to bat for wake's flaws
1. you didn't really saying anything that forthrightI just wrote that Wake should go to need blind admissions.
I think Wake should change to need blind admissions.1. you didn't really saying anything that forthright
2. you're acting like Wake is emphasizing its athletic recruiting for the sake of achieving its diversity and setting its athletic scholarships accordingly, which couldn't be further from reality
The NYT article that focuses on Duke? Yes, I read it last week.Rafi, have you read the article? They're clearly not talking about student-athletes.
So if a student can affor $25K a year, plus ,gets a $7K a year Pell grant, and Wake costs $90K, the article is suggesting that Wake’s endowment can afford to cover the annual $58K deficit for a few hundred students to bring Wake in line with some metric ?
The athletics part of this discussion is a red herring.
Or, to summarize, be twice as good and expect half as much (lifted from Ta-Nehisi Coates)Or you need to be smarter (!) enough or specialer enough compared to rich kids to earn a non-athletic scholarship…?