The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

It's not the money, it's the Olympians.

It's both, really, plus a few other factors. Good sports programs can draw positive national, regional, and/or local attention and additional applicants to the school. This is true for both football and basketball and for the sports that are non-revenue producing. We were in Palo Alto a couple weeks ago and got to watch a tennis match, water-polo tournament, and a soccer game at Stanford. It's incredibly cool to see so many kids and families come out to watch the games, and I've seen a lesser version of this phenomenon at the D3 level as well, including with teams that aren't top performers.

I've read admissions articles that talk about probably the most important factor, which is the relationship of athletics to school fundraising. Athletes as a group are much more loyal to their undergrad institutions than non-athletes, and more likely to donate post-graduation. They also, on average, will earn more in their post college careers than their non-athlete peers, so have more money to donate. The stats on female CEOs and college athletics in particular are stunning (see https://fortune.com/2017/09/22/powerful-women-business-sports/).

In modern times, little to none of the focus on college athletics by the colleges themselves has anything to do with the ideal of the "scholar athlete," nor is the amount a particular sport (other than football, and for some schools, basketball) brings in vs. its cost of any relevance (other than for Title IX purposes).

We're talking about Harvard. Harvard could have no sports teams and still attract applicants and fundraising. This is a strawman argument.

Oh. I thought we were talking about "Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like," and that I was offering helpful information for a poster who seems to think that ticket sales are the justification for colleges (virtually all colleges and universities in the US) providing athletic preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tsinghua University is the Number one University in China. It is China's version of Harvard.

It is nearly all Chinese only with the few international students coming from other Asian Countries.

Should White students sue them?

If China had a history as bad as the US in terms of slavery, then sure, and I'm not a fan of race based affirmative action, but this comparison is ridiculous. And I'm Asian American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tsinghua University is the Number one University in China. It is China's version of Harvard.

It is nearly all Chinese only with the few international students coming from other Asian Countries.

Should White students sue them?

If China had a history as bad as the US in terms of slavery, then sure, and I'm not a fan of race based affirmative action, but this comparison is ridiculous. And I'm Asian American.

Yea...that was quite a fail to equivocate the Chinese system/racial dynamics to the US'. The appropriate analogy would be should Uyghurs have equal access to education as Han people...oh wait...

[Anonymous]

How many Caucasian students get legacy compared to affirmative action of blacks and browns as a percentage of overall population and applications?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many Caucasian students get legacy compared to affirmative action of blacks and browns as a percentage of overall population and applications?

False argument. Preference is a preference. It's not a matter of degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tsinghua University is the Number one University in China. It is China's version of Harvard.

It is nearly all Chinese only with the few international students coming from other Asian Countries.

Should White students sue them?

If China had a history as bad as the US in terms of slavery, then sure, and I'm not a fan of race based affirmative action, but this comparison is ridiculous. And I'm Asian American.

Yea...that was quite a fail to equivocate the Chinese system/racial dynamics to the US'. The appropriate analogy would be should Uyghurs have equal access to education as Han people...oh wait...

did the Chinese enslave Uyghurs? Use them as slave labor? Sell of their family members one by one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tsinghua University is the Number one University in China. It is China's version of Harvard.

It is nearly all Chinese only with the few international students coming from other Asian Countries.

Should White students sue them?

If China had a history as bad as the US in terms of slavery, then sure, and I'm not a fan of race based affirmative action, but this comparison is ridiculous. And I'm Asian American.

Yea...that was quite a fail to equivocate the Chinese system/racial dynamics to the US'. The appropriate analogy would be should Uyghurs have equal access to education as Han people...oh wait...

did the Chinese enslave Uyghurs? Use them as slave labor? Sell of their family members one by one?

Worse, they're harvesting their organs...https://www.businessinsider.com/china-harvesting-organs-of-uighur-muslims-china-tribunal-tells-un-2019-9

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

It's not the money, it's the Olympians.

It's both, really, plus a few other factors. Good sports programs can draw positive national, regional, and/or local attention and additional applicants to the school. This is true for both football and basketball and for the sports that are non-revenue producing. We were in Palo Alto a couple weeks ago and got to watch a tennis match, water-polo tournament, and a soccer game at Stanford. It's incredibly cool to see so many kids and families come out to watch the games, and I've seen a lesser version of this phenomenon at the D3 level as well, including with teams that aren't top performers.

I've read admissions articles that talk about probably the most important factor, which is the relationship of athletics to school fundraising. Athletes as a group are much more loyal to their undergrad institutions than non-athletes, and more likely to donate post-graduation. They also, on average, will earn more in their post college careers than their non-athlete peers, so have more money to donate. The stats on female CEOs and college athletics in particular are stunning (see https://fortune.com/2017/09/22/powerful-women-business-sports/).

In modern times, little to none of the focus on college athletics by the colleges themselves has anything to do with the ideal of the "scholar athlete," nor is the amount a particular sport (other than football, and for some schools, basketball) brings in vs. its cost of any relevance (other than for Title IX purposes).

We're talking about Harvard. Harvard could have no sports teams and still attract applicants and fundraising. This is a strawman argument.

Oh. I thought we were talking about "Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like," and that I was offering helpful information for a poster who seems to think that ticket sales are the justification for colleges (virtually all colleges and universities in the US) providing athletic preferences.

Fair enough, does anything think that if any of the four schools named eliminated sports that their enrollment, applications and fundraising would suddenly dry up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

Who said they are ok? No dumb affirmative action students, no dumb legacies, and no dumb jock meatheads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

It's not the money, it's the Olympians.

It's both, really, plus a few other factors. Good sports programs can draw positive national, regional, and/or local attention and additional applicants to the school. This is true for both football and basketball and for the sports that are non-revenue producing. We were in Palo Alto a couple weeks ago and got to watch a tennis match, water-polo tournament, and a soccer game at Stanford. It's incredibly cool to see so many kids and families come out to watch the games, and I've seen a lesser version of this phenomenon at the D3 level as well, including with teams that aren't top performers.

I've read admissions articles that talk about probably the most important factor, which is the relationship of athletics to school fundraising. Athletes as a group are much more loyal to their undergrad institutions than non-athletes, and more likely to donate post-graduation. They also, on average, will earn more in their post college careers than their non-athlete peers, so have more money to donate. The stats on female CEOs and college athletics in particular are stunning (see https://fortune.com/2017/09/22/powerful-women-business-sports/).

In modern times, little to none of the focus on college athletics by the colleges themselves has anything to do with the ideal of the "scholar athlete," nor is the amount a particular sport (other than football, and for some schools, basketball) brings in vs. its cost of any relevance (other than for Title IX purposes).

We're talking about Harvard. Harvard could have no sports teams and still attract applicants and fundraising. This is a strawman argument.

Oh. I thought we were talking about "Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like," and that I was offering helpful information for a poster who seems to think that ticket sales are the justification for colleges (virtually all colleges and universities in the US) providing athletic preferences.

Fair enough, does anything think that if any of the four schools named eliminated sports that their enrollment, applications and fundraising would suddenly dry up?

These schools just like having sports available, both for the athletes and the students who like to watch and support their school teams. It is part of the culture that they believe is worthwhile as part of the college experience.

There are plenty of schools out there for kids who don’t value athletics. We have a variety of schools in the US with different cultures so that students can make choices about what they want in a school and then apply accordingly. Every college does not need to be just like every other college.

If a student likes the MIT and CalTech model with a focus mostly on academics, then they should apply to those schools and schools like them. If they like schools that combine high level academics with other high level activities such as sports or music or theatre as some examples, then those are the schools they should apply to.

Harvard would be a different experience for their students if they decided that they no longer valued high level sports. It wouldn’t be a bad experience, but it would be different. Harvard does have the right to decide on what kind of an experience they want to have available for their student community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

It's not the money, it's the Olympians.

It's both, really, plus a few other factors. Good sports programs can draw positive national, regional, and/or local attention and additional applicants to the school. This is true for both football and basketball and for the sports that are non-revenue producing. We were in Palo Alto a couple weeks ago and got to watch a tennis match, water-polo tournament, and a soccer game at Stanford. It's incredibly cool to see so many kids and families come out to watch the games, and I've seen a lesser version of this phenomenon at the D3 level as well, including with teams that aren't top performers.

I've read admissions articles that talk about probably the most important factor, which is the relationship of athletics to school fundraising. Athletes as a group are much more loyal to their undergrad institutions than non-athletes, and more likely to donate post-graduation. They also, on average, will earn more in their post college careers than their non-athlete peers, so have more money to donate. The stats on female CEOs and college athletics in particular are stunning (see https://fortune.com/2017/09/22/powerful-women-business-sports/).

In modern times, little to none of the focus on college athletics by the colleges themselves has anything to do with the ideal of the "scholar athlete," nor is the amount a particular sport (other than football, and for some schools, basketball) brings in vs. its cost of any relevance (other than for Title IX purposes).

We're talking about Harvard. Harvard could have no sports teams and still attract applicants and fundraising. This is a strawman argument.

Oh. I thought we were talking about "Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like," and that I was offering helpful information for a poster who seems to think that ticket sales are the justification for colleges (virtually all colleges and universities in the US) providing athletic preferences.

Fair enough, does anything think that if any of the four schools named eliminated sports that their enrollment, applications and fundraising would suddenly dry up?

These schools just like having sports available, both for the athletes and the students who like to watch and support their school teams. It is part of the culture that they believe is worthwhile as part of the college experience.

There are plenty of schools out there for kids who don’t value athletics. We have a variety of schools in the US with different cultures so that students can make choices about what they want in a school and then apply accordingly. Every college does not need to be just like every other college.

If a student likes the MIT and CalTech model with a focus mostly on academics, then they should apply to those schools and schools like them. If they like schools that combine high level academics with other high level activities such as sports or music or theatre as some examples, then those are the schools they should apply to.

Harvard would be a different experience for their students if they decided that they no longer valued high level sports. It wouldn’t be a bad experience, but it would be different. Harvard does have the right to decide on what kind of an experience they want to have available for their student community.

The natural extension of this is that schools can decide that they want to create diverse environments and accept students accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many Caucasian students get legacy compared to affirmative action of blacks and browns as a percentage of overall population and applications?

Good question.

Based on the data displayed in that now famous Table 11, around 5% of white kids admitted are legacy, and around 65% of black kids and 40% of brown kids would NOT have been admitted but for their skin color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tsinghua University is the Number one University in China. It is China's version of Harvard.

It is nearly all Chinese only with the few international students coming from other Asian Countries.

Should White students sue them?

If China had a history as bad as the US in terms of slavery, then sure, and I'm not a fan of race based affirmative action, but this comparison is ridiculous. And I'm Asian American.

I hate to tell you this, but China HAS a history that is much worse that the US in terms of slavery and general abuse of its population. The abuse was mostly not race-based. This is not an apology for slavery, but I would people would have some historical perspective.

[Anonymous]

Since the slavery argument is furious in more than one thread:

Racial preferences at colleges have nothing to do with slavery. Nothing. They are not reparations.

Racial preferences at colleges exist because colleges feel a racial balance that more closely reflects the population better helps them achieve their mission. You can disagree that it does, but implying that the horror of slavery has anything (directly) to do with the current policy is an uninformed position.

If suddenly one year nearly no Asians applied to Harvard, the ones that did would benefit from the policy, as they do at colleges where they are under-represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

Who said they are ok? No dumb affirmative action students, no dumb legacies, and no dumb jock meatheads.

I don’t think anyone in those groups at Harvard is “dumb.” And way to get in a very clever insult to people who are talented in athletics.

And to the PP who stated, “ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action,” I affirmative action doesn’t mean what you think it means.