NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Then the same would go for the preference boys currently get for anything other than engineering and cs.

Neither has to happen as gender/sex aren’t subject to strict scrutiny like race is. That’s intermediate scrutiny, if memory serves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Then the same would go for the preference boys currently get for anything other than engineering and cs.

Neither has to happen as gender/sex aren’t subject to strict scrutiny like race is. That’s intermediate scrutiny, if memory serves.

Ask VMI how this is going to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most fair way is to have comprehensive tests on each subjects, and give every kid a chance to show his/her knowledge (achievement in HS) and learning aptitude (potential). All the soft and subjective criteria result in unfairness.

But soft skills are really important in the workplace. I’d rather hire a slightly less academically inclined person who has a strong EQ. Ability to work with others, integrity, and grit matter a lot in life. I think that is why you see many high performers and CEOs that were not top of their class. Intelligence and academic achievement are not the whole picture.

I agree. But I also agree to the post you cited.
Admitting students based on comprehensive tests gives kids an equal opportunity for getting into suitable education. But getting opportunities for job or future work could be based on academics as well as EQ. They are not the same thing

I also think it’s a horrible misperception that the (largely Asian) students getting top GPAs and test scores are getting rejected because they somehow aren’t participating at high levels in leadership positions and extracurricular activities compared to other groups, but Harvard’s own data shows that this isn’t the case. The EQ is there with these kids. These schools simply just don’t want too many Asians today just like they didn’t want too many Jews in the past, so they are effectively playing into pernicious stereotypes (“They’re just test-taking robots!”) despite claiming to be open-minded and fair. The elite colleges need to come to grips with this. I pretty much don’t agree with anything with this current Supreme Court, but on this particular issue, they may finally end up being the check on these schools brazenly finding any way to address the “problem” of “too many Asians” and thinly disguising it under the imprimatur of DEI efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most fair way is to have comprehensive tests on each subjects, and give every kid a chance to show his/her knowledge (achievement in HS) and learning aptitude (potential). All the soft and subjective criteria result in unfairness.

But soft skills are really important in the workplace. I’d rather hire a slightly less academically inclined person who has a strong EQ. Ability to work with others, integrity, and grit matter a lot in life. I think that is why you see many high performers and CEOs that were not top of their class. Intelligence and academic achievement are not the whole picture.

I agree. But I also agree to the post you cited.
Admitting students based on comprehensive tests gives kids an equal opportunity for getting into suitable education. But getting opportunities for job or future work could be based on academics as well as EQ. They are not the same thing

I also think it’s a horrible misperception that the (largely Asian) students getting top GPAs and test scores are getting rejected because they somehow aren’t participating at high levels in leadership positions and extracurricular activities compared to other groups, but Harvard’s own data shows that this isn’t the case. The EQ is there with these kids. These schools simply just don’t want too many Asians today just like they didn’t want too many Jews in the past, so they are effectively playing into pernicious stereotypes (“They’re just test-taking robots!”) despite claiming to be open-minded and fair. The elite colleges need to come to grips with this. I pretty much don’t agree with anything with this current Supreme Court, but on this particular issue, they may finally end up being the check on these schools brazenly finding any way to address the “problem” of “too many Asians” and thinly disguising it under the imprimatur of DEI efforts.

The incredible thing is that so many Asian Americans are voting for this racial discrimination to continue.

Poor Asian kids, what parents they got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

Which, ironically, is exactly how people, before "holistic" acceptances, qualified to go to college. There was a test. If you passed and you could afford it and you were a white male. You were part of the class.

We've gone full circle to how my grandfathers were accepted to college. Fun times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Then the same would go for the preference boys currently get for anything other than engineering and cs.

Neither has to happen as gender/sex aren’t subject to strict scrutiny like race is. That’s intermediate scrutiny, if memory serves.

Ask VMI how this is going to go.

Well, first you are going to have to define how you define gender. How do you factor in the non binary applicants, or the trans applicant?

[Anonymous]

I remember reading a NYTimes article 12 years ago about when women outnumber men at colleges dating culture becomes skewed. This happened at UNC when they had to favor qualified kids in regardless of gender. It worsened hookup culture. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

Which, ironically, is exactly how people, before "holistic" acceptances, qualified to go to college. There was a test. If you passed and you could afford it and you were a white male. You were part of the class.

We've gone full circle to how my grandfathers were accepted to college. Fun times.

But, wasn't America developed the fastest and was way ahead of other countries during your grandfathers time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Pushing equal opportunities in K-12 is not going to make Asian Americans more likely to play football. Nor is it going to make white Americans more willing to take 12-17 AP exams. In fact the white Americans with the best access to opportunity, private school students, simply colluded to stop taking AP exams altogether. It’s also pretty clear that Asian American families with HHIs in the $100-$300k range are far more willing than Black and white families in that range to stretch financially for a high-ranked school. None of those things is going to change with additional access to opportunity. They are decisions based on different
cultural values.

Not sure why any intelligent person would want their children to play football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember reading a NYTimes article 12 years ago about when women outnumber men at colleges dating culture becomes skewed. This happened at UNC when they had to favor qualified kids in regardless of gender. It worsened hookup culture. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html

The black community has always struggled with the women being more qualified than the men. So now the other populations will have to deal with that too.

In the past there has always been more women than men, especially in times of war. It’s not a given every college woman will find a partner. It is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Or maybe women should take a second look at Asian guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Then the same would go for the preference boys currently get for anything other than engineering and cs.

Neither has to happen as gender/sex aren’t subject to strict scrutiny like race is. That’s intermediate scrutiny, if memory serves.

Ask VMI how this is going to go.

Well, first you are going to have to define how you define gender. How do you factor in the non binary applicants, or the trans applicant?

Race is even a more anti-scientific concept; I wonder why Asian Americans with dark skin don't simply mark Black in their applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe women should take a second look at Asian guys.

I welcome this! I have an Asian handsome boy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Pushing equal opportunities in K-12 is not going to make Asian Americans more likely to play football. Nor is it going to make white Americans more willing to take 12-17 AP exams. In fact the white Americans with the best access to opportunity, private school students, simply colluded to stop taking AP exams altogether. It’s also pretty clear that Asian American families with HHIs in the $100-$300k range are far more willing than Black and white families in that range to stretch financially for a high-ranked school. None of those things is going to change with additional access to opportunity. They are decisions based on different
cultural values.

Not sure why any intelligent person would want their children to play football.

Well, if that’s what it takes to get a white kid into HYP some will say yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Then the same would go for the preference boys currently get for anything other than engineering and cs.

Neither has to happen as gender/sex aren’t subject to strict scrutiny like race is. That’s intermediate scrutiny, if memory serves.

Ask VMI how this is going to go.

Well, first you are going to have to define how you define gender. How do you factor in the non binary applicants, or the trans applicant?

Race is even a more anti-scientific concept; I wonder why Asian Americans with dark skin don't simply mark Black in their applications.

It worked for Mindy Kaling's brother.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/living/feat-mindy-kaling-brother-affirmative-action/index.html