JD and Usha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

Actually, Vance definitely benefitted from DEI.

DEI (TM) wasn’t invented until 2020, years after Vance got into Yale.

Not all programs that expand access to underrepresented groups are DEI (TM) and DEI (TM) did not reach all underrepresented groups. In particular, DEI (TM) favored a worldview where privilege was measured by skin color, gender, and status as a sexual minority and almost completely ignored the actual current driver of inequality in our society which is money, class, and what kind of family you were born into.

(I put the TMs to mean Trademark, because so many people on this board do not understand the difference between the program invented in 2020 vs. actual diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sorry if it’s lame.)

It is lame. Before DEI, there was affirmative action, which has been around for years, and he definitely benefited from it.

I won’t argue that JD didn’t benefit from some sort of class-shaping school of thought, but it was not DEI and a stretch to call it affirmative action. And I’ll bet that he’d have a harder time getting admitted in the last few years because “diversity” has very much come to mean race-focused.

Being a veteran is an important category of every DEI program, including college. While JD never saw combat, he had a deskjob for years in the Marines and that helped him get admission into Yale Law so he is absolutely a DEI candidate and DEI admittee. His life changed at Yale Law - it's where he met Peter Thiel at a speech at Yale and got to work in finance in Bay area for him, and it's where he met his Prof and Mentor Amy Chua who introduced him to her publisher (Tiger Mom book) and put in a strong reference for his Hillbilly Elegy book to get published which made him millions.

Vance is where he is everything he is and the "success story" he is today because he was a DEI recipient to Yale Law as a Marine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

How exactly did she benefit from DEI?

She's female

Females are overrepresented in college and law school.

Now they are, but she's 40. Not true 20 years ago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

How exactly did she benefit from DEI?

She's female

Females are overrepresented in college and law school.

Now they are, but she's 40. Not true 20 years ago

Categorically false. That is when I worked in law school admissions. Exactly when she and JD were applying. Women were overrepresented even then. It was NOT a bump in admissions. Being a poor hick was though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

How exactly did she benefit from DEI?

She's female

Females are overrepresented in college and law school.

Now they are, but she's 40. Not true 20 years ago

Categorically false. That is when I worked in law school admissions. Exactly when she and JD were applying. Women were overrepresented even then. It was NOT a bump in admissions. Being a poor hick was though.

Not sure how 48% would be overrepresented

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2023-november/see-her-hear-her-historical-evolution-women-in-law/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

How exactly did she benefit from DEI?

She's female

Females are overrepresented in college and law school.

Now they are, but she's 40. Not true 20 years ago

Categorically false. That is when I worked in law school admissions. Exactly when she and JD were applying. Women were overrepresented even then. It was NOT a bump in admissions. Being a poor hick was though.

Not sure how 48% would be overrepresented

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2023-november/see-her-hear-her-historical-evolution-women-in-law/

You need to know the applicant pool to determine that. Men score on average slightly higher than women on the LSAT, but men are much more likely to score in 175+ range for the LSAT

Yale probably scooped up a disproportionate share of 175+ women so the issue is probably more nuanced.

Simple Google search shows 56% of YLS class of 2013 was female which does suggest over representation but need more info on the applicant pool and who accepted the admissions offer.

20% were veterans for class of 2013.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

Actually, Vance definitely benefitted from DEI.

DEI (TM) wasn’t invented until 2020, years after Vance got into Yale.

Not all programs that expand access to underrepresented groups are DEI (TM) and DEI (TM) did not reach all underrepresented groups. In particular, DEI (TM) favored a worldview where privilege was measured by skin color, gender, and status as a sexual minority and almost completely ignored the actual current driver of inequality in our society which is money, class, and what kind of family you were born into.

(I put the TMs to mean Trademark, because so many people on this board do not understand the difference between the program invented in 2020 vs. actual diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sorry if it’s lame.)

It is lame. Before DEI, there was affirmative action, which has been around for years, and he definitely benefited from it.

I won’t argue that JD didn’t benefit from some sort of class-shaping school of thought, but it was not DEI and a stretch to call it affirmative action. And I’ll bet that he’d have a harder time getting admitted in the last few years because “diversity” has very much come to mean race-focused.

Tell me you know little to nothing about college admissions and not just over the last few years.

My eminently successful DH freely acknowledges that his admit to Stanford was for geographical diversity and that was 35 years ago. He was a great student blah blah but schools love to say “we have students from every state,” so there you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

How exactly did she benefit from DEI?

She's female

Females are overrepresented in college and law school.

Now they are, but she's 40. Not true 20 years ago

Categorically false. That is when I worked in law school admissions. Exactly when she and JD were applying. Women were overrepresented even then. It was NOT a bump in admissions. Being a poor hick was though.

Not sure how 48% would be overrepresented

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2023-november/see-her-hear-her-historical-evolution-women-in-law/

You need to know the applicant pool to determine that. Men score on average slightly higher than women on the LSAT, but men are much more likely to score in 175+ range for the LSAT

Yale probably scooped up a disproportionate share of 175+ women so the issue is probably more nuanced.

Simple Google search shows 56% of YLS class of 2013 was female which does suggest over representation but need more info on the applicant pool and who accepted the admissions offer.

20% were veterans for class of 2013.

Feels like any employer/school with a pulse was aware that there was great emphasis on hiring/admitting veterans at that time. Folks who do not think this was the case are simply uninformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

Actually, Vance definitely benefitted from DEI.

DEI (TM) wasn’t invented until 2020, years after Vance got into Yale.

Not all programs that expand access to underrepresented groups are DEI (TM) and DEI (TM) did not reach all underrepresented groups. In particular, DEI (TM) favored a worldview where privilege was measured by skin color, gender, and status as a sexual minority and almost completely ignored the actual current driver of inequality in our society which is money, class, and what kind of family you were born into.

(I put the TMs to mean Trademark, because so many people on this board do not understand the difference between the program invented in 2020 vs. actual diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sorry if it’s lame.)

It is lame. Before DEI, there was affirmative action, which has been around for years, and he definitely benefited from it.

I won’t argue that JD didn’t benefit from some sort of class-shaping school of thought, but it was not DEI and a stretch to call it affirmative action. And I’ll bet that he’d have a harder time getting admitted in the last few years because “diversity” has very much come to mean race-focused.

Tell me you know little to nothing about college admissions and not just over the last few years.

My eminently successful DH freely acknowledges that his admit to Stanford was for geographical diversity and that was 35 years ago. He was a great student blah blah but schools love to say “we have students from every state,” so there you go.

And that is not DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not a marriage that will last (Vance & Usha)

This is what I have been saying. Seeing them at the prayer service after the inauguration when he was making faces about the priest's sermon, and then again, their interaction at the Kennedy Center when they were booed. There are others... but I'm forecasting and eventual divorce. She seems like a decent human being, and he clearly is not.

[Anonymous]

They'll stay together. She wants this. She wants her husband to be president, she wants her kids to get all the benefits, and she wants to be first lady. Plain and simple. She isn't hiding. She is perfectly happy with all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

Actually, Vance definitely benefitted from DEI.

DEI (TM) wasn’t invented until 2020, years after Vance got into Yale.

Not all programs that expand access to underrepresented groups are DEI (TM) and DEI (TM) did not reach all underrepresented groups. In particular, DEI (TM) favored a worldview where privilege was measured by skin color, gender, and status as a sexual minority and almost completely ignored the actual current driver of inequality in our society which is money, class, and what kind of family you were born into.

(I put the TMs to mean Trademark, because so many people on this board do not understand the difference between the program invented in 2020 vs. actual diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sorry if it’s lame.)

It is lame. Before DEI, there was affirmative action, which has been around for years, and he definitely benefited from it.

I won’t argue that JD didn’t benefit from some sort of class-shaping school of thought, but it was not DEI and a stretch to call it affirmative action. And I’ll bet that he’d have a harder time getting admitted in the last few years because “diversity” has very much come to mean race-focused.

Tell me you know little to nothing about college admissions and not just over the last few years.

My eminently successful DH freely acknowledges that his admit to Stanford was for geographical diversity and that was 35 years ago. He was a great student blah blah but schools love to say “we have students from every state,” so there you go.

And that is not DEI.

Why do you think it isn't? I got into many good schools that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

Actually, Vance definitely benefitted from DEI.

DEI (TM) wasn’t invented until 2020, years after Vance got into Yale.

Not all programs that expand access to underrepresented groups are DEI (TM) and DEI (TM) did not reach all underrepresented groups. In particular, DEI (TM) favored a worldview where privilege was measured by skin color, gender, and status as a sexual minority and almost completely ignored the actual current driver of inequality in our society which is money, class, and what kind of family you were born into.

(I put the TMs to mean Trademark, because so many people on this board do not understand the difference between the program invented in 2020 vs. actual diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sorry if it’s lame.)

It is lame. Before DEI, there was affirmative action, which has been around for years, and he definitely benefited from it.

I won’t argue that JD didn’t benefit from some sort of class-shaping school of thought, but it was not DEI and a stretch to call it affirmative action. And I’ll bet that he’d have a harder time getting admitted in the last few years because “diversity” has very much come to mean race-focused.

Tell me you know little to nothing about college admissions and not just over the last few years.

My eminently successful DH freely acknowledges that his admit to Stanford was for geographical diversity and that was 35 years ago. He was a great student blah blah but schools love to say “we have students from every state,” so there you go.

And that is not DEI.

Why do you think it isn't? I got into many good schools that way.

Why wouldn't a push for geographic diversity be considered affirmative action/DEI? Heck, even my exchange student from Madrid complained that students from the Canary Islands were getting into universities in Madrid with lower test scores. Affirmative action seems to be spreading!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They'll stay together. She wants this. She wants her husband to be president, she wants her kids to get all the benefits, and she wants to be first lady. Plain and simple. She isn't hiding. She is perfectly happy with all of this.

But she is aware of the pain they plan to inflict on the country. The tell is the unusual level secrecy around where those 3 Vances go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

Actually, Vance definitely benefitted from DEI.

DEI (TM) wasn’t invented until 2020, years after Vance got into Yale.

Not all programs that expand access to underrepresented groups are DEI (TM) and DEI (TM) did not reach all underrepresented groups. In particular, DEI (TM) favored a worldview where privilege was measured by skin color, gender, and status as a sexual minority and almost completely ignored the actual current driver of inequality in our society which is money, class, and what kind of family you were born into.

(I put the TMs to mean Trademark, because so many people on this board do not understand the difference between the program invented in 2020 vs. actual diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sorry if it’s lame.)

LOL, you're lame. These programs were not invented in 2020, there was simply a deepening of the commitment by institutions to these values in the wake of George Floyd's death. There isn't some "before" time and "after" time in this work.

blather blather blather.

Then why are you peeps so up in arms about DEI getting canceled?

Because you dumba$$es don't know what DEI is. It's not individual hiring decisions and quotas. It's outreach, removing barriers, and training. Why are you so opposed to that? Unless you are some mediocre white person, or an ahole, or both, you shouldn't be.

DEI sounds fine until you realize what they mean by it.
Diversity sounds nice, except it is created by favoring some races over others.
Equity sounds nice until you realize equity means equality of results. Mostly along racial lines.
Inclusion seems fine except when inclusion is practiced in a way to exclude others.

Who is “they”? At Yale, diversity can mean many things, including diversity of thought. And that, unfortunately, is how they admitted someone like Vance — who checked multiple diversity boxes.

Oh, and with limited slots or resources, “inclusion” almost always excludes others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No decent woman would have married vance or trump.
Usha definitely profited from DEI so why is she still around?

Actually, Vance definitely benefitted from DEI.

DEI (TM) wasn’t invented until 2020, years after Vance got into Yale.

Not all programs that expand access to underrepresented groups are DEI (TM) and DEI (TM) did not reach all underrepresented groups. In particular, DEI (TM) favored a worldview where privilege was measured by skin color, gender, and status as a sexual minority and almost completely ignored the actual current driver of inequality in our society which is money, class, and what kind of family you were born into.

(I put the TMs to mean Trademark, because so many people on this board do not understand the difference between the program invented in 2020 vs. actual diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sorry if it’s lame.)

It is lame. Before DEI, there was affirmative action, which has been around for years, and he definitely benefited from it.

I won’t argue that JD didn’t benefit from some sort of class-shaping school of thought, but it was not DEI and a stretch to call it affirmative action. And I’ll bet that he’d have a harder time getting admitted in the last few years because “diversity” has very much come to mean race-focused.

Tell me you know little to nothing about college admissions and not just over the last few years.

My eminently successful DH freely acknowledges that his admit to Stanford was for geographical diversity and that was 35 years ago. He was a great student blah blah but schools love to say “we have students from every state,” so there you go.

And that is not DEI.

Why do you think it isn't? I got into many good schools that way.

Why wouldn't a push for geographic diversity be considered affirmative action/DEI? Heck, even my exchange student from Madrid complained that students from the Canary Islands were getting into universities in Madrid with lower test scores. Affirmative action seems to be spreading!

I have no idea if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me..

But also, affirmative action and DEI are related the way a radish and a kiwi are related... They might be confused by someone who knows nothing about either.