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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The US is only 13% black and 6% Asian. Colleges should be majority white because the US is majority white. The elite colleges that are 50% minority have way over-corrected.

Harvard's class of 2026 is 43% White, 28% Asian, 14% Black, 11% Latino.

Princeton's class of 2026 is nearly 50% White, 25% Asian, 9% Black, 8% Latino.

These schools are still not hitting 2020 census marks with Latino and Black populations; they are far from overrepresented.

What were the percentages for the application pool?

[Anonymous]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

[Anonymous]

Wonder if this is reversed, will private day schools not care as much about racial diversity?

[Anonymous]

so they think Blacks experience racial discrimination and harships, but Asians not?? LOL wtf are they smoking

[Anonymous]

Doesn't sound like it's going well, so far, for the arguments against race. Sotomayor and I think Barrett making strong arguments against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

They seem to be going around in circles..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm less concerned about letting in some URM kids who score lower than rich legacies (mostly white) who use money to buy their way in, a la the Trumps and Bushes.

If universities can let in whomever they want, then why can't they let in URM who may not score higher than a rich white kid?

Universities have been using legacies forever, including as a way to keep the "undesirables" out.

Fix that first. All it does it keep the privilege within a group of mostly rich white people.

-Asian American

Asians are hit the hardest and are not urm. Don't be stupid.

-asian american

pp here.. no sh1t, but as far as "fair" is concerned, legacy admits is much more unfair as a whole than letting in URM with lower scores.

At least the current practice has some altruistic value. Legacy admits is just purely about privilege and greed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't sound like it's going well, so far, for the arguments against race. Sotomayor and I think Barrett making strong arguments against.

Barrett says race is a voluntarily provided input and not mandated on the app. You're not required to indicate race if you don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so they think Blacks experience racial discrimination and harships, but Asians not?? LOL wtf are they smoking

Furthermore, it's not just about hardship, it's about how you overcame it.
Looks like Asians are the ones overcame it well LMAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't sound like it's going well, so far, for the arguments against race. Sotomayor and I think Barrett making strong arguments against.

Barrett says race is a voluntarily provided input and not mandated on the app. You're not required to indicate race if you don't want to.

Just checked CommonApp.

It doesn't clearly say it's 'Optoinal'.
It sounds like demanindg filling it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"academic" (sic)

Legacy blind?

Athletic ability blind?

Private school blind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

Not really. It never was.

Not really what?? It should be for like country clubs??

Why not? The SAT is not in the Constitution.

Even country clubs are not allow to discriminate by law LOL

Sure. But country clubs are not required to admit people who ace the SAT ahead of charismatic, well-connected, socially adept people.

No they give required qualification criteria equally to every individual, and don't discrminate with race.
Imangine a country club saying "oh we already hae 30% Blacks. that's too many, so we are not accepting more Blacks at this time".

Are you suggesting there is a college that says such a thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"academic" (sic)

Legacy blind?

Athletic ability blind?

Private school blind?

Gender blind. Inferior male students can't be admitted just to have a male female balance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

Not really. It never was.

Not really what?? It should be for like country clubs??

Why not? The SAT is not in the Constitution.

Even country clubs are not allow to discriminate by law LOL

Sure. But country clubs are not required to admit people who ace the SAT ahead of charismatic, well-connected, socially adept people.

No they give required qualification criteria equally to every individual, and don't discrminate with race.
Imangine a country club saying "oh we already hae 30% Blacks. that's too many, so we are not accepting more Blacks at this time".

Are you suggesting there is a college that says such a thing?

Harvard for example

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom didn't go to any college and I didn't go to college in US, my daughter is underprivileged as a first generation applying to American colleges but she has to compete against students whose parents understand this system. She can beat them but being an Asian, she is in a limited quota group so less desirable than underachievers of other quota groups.

It is a fallacy that that there is a quota, and it is a fallacy that the kids who got into whatever school you are talking about are underachievers. They do not force rank admissions based on a single test, nor should they.

If no qouta, why use race in admission?
Who said single test??

Affirmative action is not a quota system. If you didn't bother to find out what AA is, why are you arguing about it?