Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The insanity of race quotas should horrify rationale people. Do you want your neurosurgeon to be the product of generous handicaps in medical school admission? Do you want to be operated on by a doctor who scored 40% lower on their MCAT than other admits but had the right skin color? Ian th at how we should select airplane pilots? AA is absurd and this is the only country in the world that even considers race in admissions.


Where is the evidence that those who benefitted from AA became unqualified profesdionals?


Seriously? AA isn’t doing any favors by admitting unqualified black applicants into Harvard. What’s the dropout rate of black students in the pre-med track at Harvard? And what is the cost of the insane amount of academic tutoring and other support that Harvard must supply to black admits because they simply don’t have the academic credentials of their peers?


Why don't you tell us?

You'd better f-ing know the answer, too.


Clearly you don't have a clue but you couldn't but help spouting racist, baseless nonsense. It's embarrassing to broadcast such ignorance.

I am not here to spoon-feed you knowledge so please make Google your friend.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated



Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.


What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?


What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.


Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.


I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.


No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias


They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.


No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.


Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group


No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.


That argument goes both ways. Those seats are available to URMs as well.

If there is something inherently valuable about the Harvard seats, then people will have views on who "should" get them.


Except one means there will be nearly no balance across those seats, excluding certain races, and the other will have a balance representative to the population. Tell me which is worse - not which is worse for any individual kid who is unlikely to get in anyway, but worse for the college and worse for the country.


Why do you think anything should be balanced against the racial breakdown of the country? I can’t imagine a more infantile and idiotic thought. Shall we mandate that every NFL team be 7% Asian? Or that 2% of artists performing at MSG be jewish? Do you event relaid show stupid you are?


You're too logical! I'd like to see the response to this but of course it won't happen. Victim mentality folks only want to choose the arguments benefitting their position.


Stop it, victim mentality is all the rage. We must all bow to the alter of race and atone for our privilege it's the new law, any other opinion is well...we know, it's the big R word, how dare you have an opposite opinion.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The insanity of race quotas should horrify rationale people. Do you want your neurosurgeon to be the product of generous handicaps in medical school admission? Do you want to be operated on by a doctor who scored 40% lower on their MCAT than other admits but had the right skin color? Ian th at how we should select airplane pilots? AA is absurd and this is the only country in the world that even considers race in admissions.


Where is the evidence that those who benefitted from AA became unqualified profesdionals?


Seriously? AA isn’t doing any favors by admitting unqualified black applicants into Harvard. What’s the dropout rate of black students in the pre-med track at Harvard? And what is the cost of the insane amount of academic tutoring and other support that Harvard must supply to black admits because they simply don’t have the academic credentials of their peers?


So many unsupported assumptions. Do you have any actual data on that? Any at all? Do you even know who gets tutoring?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:WTF slavery has to do with admission to colleges for kids born in the 21st century.



I know you wouldn't know. Enjoy your ignorance.


Yea right some kids born in 2005 should be sacrificed for your kids because of slavery.


Is that 2005 kid enjoying the good life provided by the history of slavery in the U.S.?
Is that 2005 kid attending an institution that black blood made prominent?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:WTF slavery has to do with admission to colleges for kids born in the 21st century.



I know you wouldn't know. Enjoy your ignorance.


Yea right some kids born in 2005 should be sacrificed for your kids because of slavery.


Funny how you think it’s the black kids stealing Asian kids’ seats. And not the numerous legacies, athletes, etc. Very telling.

And it’s basically a lottery for a bunch of quailed applicants, including POC. No one is entitled to a seat.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated



Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.


What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?


What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.


Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.


I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.


No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias


They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.


No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.


Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group


No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.


That argument goes both ways. Those seats are available to URMs as well.

If there is something inherently valuable about the Harvard seats, then people will have views on who "should" get them.


Except one means there will be nearly no balance across those seats, excluding certain races, and the other will have a balance representative to the population. Tell me which is worse - not which is worse for any individual kid who is unlikely to get in anyway, but worse for the college and worse for the country.


Why do you think anything should be balanced against the racial breakdown of the country? I can’t imagine a more infantile and idiotic thought. Shall we mandate that every NFL team be 7% Asian? Or that 2% of artists performing at MSG be jewish? Do you event relaid show stupid you are?


The NFL! Another example as stupid as the NBA example. And for the record, YES, the NFL with its 3600 employees should not show racial bias in hiring, and should be able to demonstrate that statistically.

But we are talking about colleges who should be allowed to - NOT REQUIRED TO - use criteria they want to get the students they want to build the class they want as long as they do not break the law.

You shouldn't resort to calling people stupid regarding topics you don't understand and have made no effort to. Makes you look... you know...


Racism is breaking law so Supreme Court will rightfully judge that.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated



Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.


What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?


What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.


Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.


I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.


No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias


They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.


No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.


Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group


No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.


That argument goes both ways. Those seats are available to URMs as well.

If there is something inherently valuable about the Harvard seats, then people will have views on who "should" get them.


Except one means there will be nearly no balance across those seats, excluding certain races, and the other will have a balance representative to the population. Tell me which is worse - not which is worse for any individual kid who is unlikely to get in anyway, but worse for the college and worse for the country.


Why do you think anything should be balanced against the racial breakdown of the country? I can’t imagine a more infantile and idiotic thought. Shall we mandate that every NFL team be 7% Asian? Or that 2% of artists performing at MSG be jewish? Do you event relaid show stupid you are?


You're too logical! I'd like to see the response to this but of course it won't happen. Victim mentality folks only want to choose the arguments benefitting their position.


Stop it, victim mentality is all the rage. We must all bow to the alter of race and atone for our privilege it's the new law, any other opinion is well...we know, it's the big R word, how dare you have an opposite opinion.


Please stop badmouthing these Asian students.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated



Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.


What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?


What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.


Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.


I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.


No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias


They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.


No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.


Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group


No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.


That argument goes both ways. Those seats are available to URMs as well.

If there is something inherently valuable about the Harvard seats, then people will have views on who "should" get them.


Except one means there will be nearly no balance across those seats, excluding certain races, and the other will have a balance representative to the population. Tell me which is worse - not which is worse for any individual kid who is unlikely to get in anyway, but worse for the college and worse for the country.


Why do you think anything should be balanced against the racial breakdown of the country? I can’t imagine a more infantile and idiotic thought. Shall we mandate that every NFL team be 7% Asian? Or that 2% of artists performing at MSG be jewish? Do you event relaid show stupid you are?


You're too logical! I'd like to see the response to this but of course it won't happen. Victim mentality folks only want to choose the arguments benefitting their position.


Stop it, victim mentality is all the rage. We must all bow to the alter of race and atone for our privilege it's the new law, any other opinion is well...we know, it's the big R word, how dare you have an opposite opinion.


We get it. You are perfectly fine with the effects of systemic racism.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:WTF slavery has to do with admission to colleges for kids born in the 21st century.



I know you wouldn't know. Enjoy your ignorance.


Yea right some kids born in 2005 should be sacrificed for your kids because of slavery.


Is that 2005 kid enjoying the good life provided by the history of slavery in the U.S.?
Is that 2005 kid attending an institution that black blood made prominent?


Unbelievable victim mentality and entitlement mentality
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:WTF slavery has to do with admission to colleges for kids born in the 21st century.



I know you wouldn't know. Enjoy your ignorance.


Yea right some kids born in 2005 should be sacrificed for your kids because of slavery.


Racial policies in college admission have nothing to do with slavery, reparations or guilt.

Racial policies in college admissions exist so colleges can build the classes THEY WANT based on criteria THEY SELECT. End period.

Which they are free to do with any criteria as long as they don't break the law. And yes that means they can take an athlete with lower SAT scores, or a talented singer, or a civic leader, or the son of a donor, or yes, someone of an under-represented race.

Don't take my word for it. Ask one college administrator, then another. Just f-king ask them why they have the policy. They'll tell you, in detail. But you won't ask them, because you don't want the answer.

All races benefit from this policy where they are under-represented. This includes asians at top LACs and whites at Howard. You people don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand and you don't want to. You just want to talk about the lucky minorities and how they are oppressing you. It is pathetic.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated



Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.


What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?


What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.


Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.


I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.


No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias


They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.


No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.


Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group


No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.


That argument goes both ways. Those seats are available to URMs as well.

If there is something inherently valuable about the Harvard seats, then people will have views on who "should" get them.


Except one means there will be nearly no balance across those seats, excluding certain races, and the other will have a balance representative to the population. Tell me which is worse - not which is worse for any individual kid who is unlikely to get in anyway, but worse for the college and worse for the country.


Lack of meritocracy will lead to the decline of this country while other countries are becoming more and more competitive


Lol that you thought the US had a meritocracy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated



Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.


What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?


What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.


Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.


I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.


No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias


They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.


No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.


Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group


No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.


That argument goes both ways. Those seats are available to URMs as well.

If there is something inherently valuable about the Harvard seats, then people will have views on who "should" get them.


Except one means there will be nearly no balance across those seats, excluding certain races, and the other will have a balance representative to the population. Tell me which is worse - not which is worse for any individual kid who is unlikely to get in anyway, but worse for the college and worse for the country.


Why do you think anything should be balanced against the racial breakdown of the country? I can’t imagine a more infantile and idiotic thought. Shall we mandate that every NFL team be 7% Asian? Or that 2% of artists performing at MSG be jewish? Do you event relaid show stupid you are?


You're too logical! I'd like to see the response to this but of course it won't happen. Victim mentality folks only want to choose the arguments benefitting their position.


Stop it, victim mentality is all the rage. We must all bow to the alter of race and atone for our privilege it's the new law, any other opinion is well...we know, it's the big R word, how dare you have an opposite opinion.


We get it. You are perfectly fine with the effects of systemic racism.


LOL, I'm black, successful and self made. You proved my point and brought out the old "R" word just as predicted. Funny thing is I bet you are white as a ball of cotton, thanks for being a Soldier for my people.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The insanity of race quotas should horrify rationale people. Do you want your neurosurgeon to be the product of generous handicaps in medical school admission? Do you want to be operated on by a doctor who scored 40% lower on their MCAT than other admits but had the right skin color? Ian th at how we should select airplane pilots? AA is absurd and this is the only country in the world that even considers race in admissions.


Where is the evidence that those who benefitted from AA became unqualified profesdionals?


Seriously? AA isn’t doing any favors by admitting unqualified black applicants into Harvard. What’s the dropout rate of black students in the pre-med track at Harvard? And what is the cost of the insane amount of academic tutoring and other support that Harvard must supply to black admits because they simply don’t have the academic credentials of their peers?


Why don't you tell us?

You'd better f-ing know the answer, too.


Clearly you don't have a clue but you couldn't but help spouting racist, baseless nonsense. It's embarrassing to broadcast such ignorance.

I am not here to spoon-feed you knowledge so please make Google your friend.



I knew you didn't know the answer.

Because you are a bullshit spewing liar. And you're chickenshit, too. BTW I did google it. You're a liar. A sad, pathetic little liar.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The insanity of race quotas should horrify rationale people. Do you want your neurosurgeon to be the product of generous handicaps in medical school admission? Do you want to be operated on by a doctor who scored 40% lower on their MCAT than other admits but had the right skin color? Ian th at how we should select airplane pilots? AA is absurd and this is the only country in the world that even considers race in admissions.


Where is the evidence that those who benefitted from AA became unqualified profesdionals?


Seriously? AA isn’t doing any favors by admitting unqualified black applicants into Harvard. What’s the dropout rate of black students in the pre-med track at Harvard? And what is the cost of the insane amount of academic tutoring and other support that Harvard must supply to black admits because they simply don’t have the academic credentials of their peers?


“Unqualified”? Bullsh1t strawman.


Yes, profoundly unqualified. How else would you describe an applicant that requires a 450 SAT handicap to be admitted?


Citation on 450? From what baseline?

Anyway, SAT scores aren’t an indicator of college success. As has already been mentioned. It’s not like Harvard is all that hard anyway. It’s no MIT.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated



Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.


What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?


What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.


Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.


I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.


No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias


They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.


No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.


Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group


No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.


That argument goes both ways. Those seats are available to URMs as well.

If there is something inherently valuable about the Harvard seats, then people will have views on who "should" get them.


Except one means there will be nearly no balance across those seats, excluding certain races, and the other will have a balance representative to the population. Tell me which is worse - not which is worse for any individual kid who is unlikely to get in anyway, but worse for the college and worse for the country.


Why do you think anything should be balanced against the racial breakdown of the country? I can’t imagine a more infantile and idiotic thought. Shall we mandate that every NFL team be 7% Asian? Or that 2% of artists performing at MSG be jewish? Do you event relaid show stupid you are?


The NFL! Another example as stupid as the NBA example. And for the record, YES, the NFL with its 3600 employees should not show racial bias in hiring, and should be able to demonstrate that statistically.

But we are talking about colleges who should be allowed to - NOT REQUIRED TO - use criteria they want to get the students they want to build the class they want as long as they do not break the law.

You shouldn't resort to calling people stupid regarding topics you don't understand and have made no effort to. Makes you look... you know...


Racism is breaking law so Supreme Court will rightfully judge that.


It's not racism because it is not specifically biased against a specific race. It's the opposite. It ensures certain races are not excluded from the class.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: