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:

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.

Good thing you are “atoning for your privilege”.

[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.

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.

Asians are not URM at top SLACs. Maybe 20+ yrs ago fewer Asians had heard of them and were applying. Not true if you look at #s today (someone posted them upthread).

[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?

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.

When exactly do you plan on standing on your own merits without handicaps? It’s a simple question and cuts to the heart of the matter. How much longer will black people require handicaps?

[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

I might have thought this statement would be true up until the last several years. China has been imploding, India has a long way to go development wise, and Europe has a whole host of short-term and long-term problems. Korea's struggles with a high-stakes testing "meritocracy" makes me think we really don't want to go too far that way either.

[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.

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.

Thank you. I thought so, it has nothing to do with slavery.
However it seems to be breaking law and constitution hence the Supreme Court hearing.

If colleges want to do whatever the want to do, they should first go completely private forfeit all the tax benefits and and government aid.

[Anonymous]

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.

Are you unaware that AA patients do way better with an AA fixture than a white or Asian one?

[Anonymous]

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.

Are you unaware that AA patients do way better with an AA fixture than a white or Asian one?

Doctor*

[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?

Qualified = meeting the Ivy index which these students meet.

[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?

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.

It's favoritism to certain race. That's racism.

[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.

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.

Best post in this thread.

Meritocracy in the United States is a myth.

Standardized testing included.

[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.

not PP, but my guess is that they care less about education and put less effort.
Culturally they may value more in succeeding in the areas such as sports or entertainment industry like being a rapper or singer which are all ok. Nothing is wrong with that.

However if you want to improve on the education area, you have to go to the source of the problema and support and aid them to care more and put more effort in education instead of forcing it to increase the numbers artificially.

You actually did say it out loud! I am shocked! There it is, folks... your open racism of the day. Hope it is the last one you hear today, but unfortunately we are likely to get more.

PP you disgust me. You are repulsive. And also an imbecile. "Educate them more, but don't let them into the best colleges!" Lol.

Why are you mad??

The reason is simple on the surface, you care less and put less effort = lower score.
You care more and put more effort = higher score.

It's most likely a cultural thing. Asians probably care more about education and put more effort.

Seriously, what else could be the reason?

Maybe asians study more for standardized tests because they know they are competing against other asians who have high scores and have to stand out. Maybe the good black and hispanic students know from history that they don't need super high scores in order get multiple acceptances at all the ivies.

Yes. This is what’s so disappointing about AA advocates. They don’t realize that people rise to the standard that is expected of them. Kids respond to incentives just like everyone else. Removing AA at this point in history is going to narrow the achievement gap, not increase it.

So you're saying that Black and Hispanic students choose to do less because they know they will be admitted? Now you just sound stupid.

I don’t think that tone is called for. All I (and the previous poster) are saying is that it’s a matter of degree. Work is costly. If the marginal payout is lower then you do less of it. Nobody is calling anyone lazy, people are smartly responding to incentives. This is why Asians study much much more hours than Blacks and Hispanics.

And that is why the achievement gap will diminish — removing AA increases the marginal benefit of studying for Blacks and reduces it for Asians.

No. That’s not how that works. WTF? Are you trolling?

Sometimes I do troll but this is not one of those times. What’s your objection to this argument?

“This is why Asians study much much more hours than Blacks and Hispanics.”

So if there were no AA, Asian students will no longer study so many hours?

Your logic is ridiculous. So much so that it sounds like trolling.

Well certainly some of this is culturally determined and slow to change, but yes if this artificial restriction on Asians eases they will ultimately respond by studying less. Conversely Blacks will study and prep more if they need to to get into the level of school they want. I think you may either believe people don’t respond to incentives, or perhaps you believe that no amount of additional studying will raise Black test scores? If so, why?

Reducing opportunities will reduce incentives. If someone thinks these schools are out of reach then why try?

Realistically, my own kids have very little chance of getting into my alma mater. It’s basically a lottery, even for legacies. So I’m not going to push them to kill themselves trying.

There are over 2800 4 year colleges.
Pick somewhere else if you can't compete.

My kids will be totally fine if they go to my alma mater. Or if they go to a top 50. Or probably even any four-year college.

And colleges get to define their criteria for “competition”. Not you.

[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:

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.

Not pp.
I'm Asian and my doctor is Black and an excellent doctor.

[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:

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.

Not pp.
I'm Asian and my doctor is Black and an excellent doctor.

What's your point? What a useless comment that has absolutely no link to the previous posts.

[Anonymous]

To the Asian parents in this thread, at the end of the day, all your child's hard and admirable work to get into Harvard will be for nought when your child graduates and experiences the cold reality that anti-Asian racism will always trump that Harvard degree. The same white people who are clamouring to dismantle AA and are touting "meritocracy" will also be the ones promoting unqualified white males and females above your over-qualified Asian child. Don't fool yourself into thinking that meritocracy exists in this country. You too will be cast aside when you've served your purpose as tools of conservative white men. The SFAA case is not for you, is for white men.

[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.

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.

I don't know what the legacy admit rates are for the different races but since the 80's thanks to aa there a have been at least proportional representation of all the races. Sure whites may have advantage if you are looking for multigenerational legacies but if you are looking at the parents there were adequate numbers of asians, blacks and hispanics at all the ivies by the 80's.