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: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.

These points remain mostly ignored because they do not comport with embraced narratives.

Asians don't want free points at any school.
They just want fair and square competition.

Clearly your definition of "fair and square" competition does not align with the standards Harvard uses. Are Harvard's standards unfair because they don't give you the outcome you desire?

Harvard standard is unfair because it discriminates based on race.
Do I have to tell you this after 70 some pages?

70 pages later I have yet to see the evidence of discrimination.

As any statistician will tell you, %s can be deceiving.

What is the breakdown/number of applicants? What is the breakdown/number of admittees?

+1 without raw numbers the chart is meaningless.

If 40000 White people applied and only 1000 AA that’s meaningful , if it’s opposite well that would be wild

Why does it matter? Is it ok to subject applicants to different standard based on race if few applicants of a certain race apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These points remain mostly ignored because they do not comport with embraced narratives.

Asians don't want free points at any school.
They just want fair and square competition.

Clearly your definition of "fair and square" competition does not align with the standards Harvard uses. Are Harvard's standards unfair because they don't give you the outcome you desire?

Harvard standard is unfair because it discriminates based on race.
Do I have to tell you this after 70 some pages?

70 pages later I have yet to see the evidence of discrimination.

There isn't any.

Lower courts stated such.

This is purely political.

The conservative SFFA got the numbers with the 6-3 conservative block of the SCOTUS.

AA will get banned.

Colleges will adjust. The elite colleges will still thrive and be diverse.

Lower courts found that race was being used in admission in line with Bollinger. They did not find that there wasn't discrimination, only that it was legal. After this decision, it will no longer be legal. Elite colleges may end up being diverse after this, but I'd expect some very large settlements while the explore the limits of how they can legally achieve class profiles

[Anonymous]

It is assumed that because of the current makeup of SCOTUS the absence of evidence of discrimination is irrelevant in making a determination that AA needs to be dismantled. The powers that be have a long list of cases before the Supreme Court that they hope will reverse course.

[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: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.

These points remain mostly ignored because they do not comport with embraced narratives.

Asians don't want free points at any school.
They just want fair and square competition.

Clearly your definition of "fair and square" competition does not align with the standards Harvard uses. Are Harvard's standards unfair because they don't give you the outcome you desire?

Harvard standard is unfair because it discriminates based on race.
Do I have to tell you this after 70 some pages?

70 pages later I have yet to see the evidence of discrimination.

As any statistician will tell you, %s can be deceiving.

What is the breakdown/number of applicants? What is the breakdown/number of admittees?

+1 without raw numbers the chart is meaningless.

If 40000 White people applied and only 1000 AA that’s meaningful , if it’s opposite well that would be wild

Why does it matter? Is it ok to subject applicants to different standard based on race if few applicants of a certain race apply?

Yes it matters. 60000 applicants, if 59000 are white and 1 is other and the 1 is accepted they have 100% acceptance rate vs 3% acceptance … looks pretty bad and if that 1 is not accepted it’s looks like 0% acceptance.

They only take 2000 people so % not accepted will be large if the # applied is high.

[Anonymous]

59999*

[Anonymous]

I really hope that the downfall of AA will support the current shift in enrollment from white institutions to HBCUs. Black students have options (formed by necessity) so they will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hope that the downfall of AA will support the current shift in enrollment from white institutions to HBCUs. Black students have options (formed by necessity) so they will be fine.

I thought diversity was important.
Why would you go to a school with 80+% of the same race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hope that the downfall of AA will support the current shift in enrollment from white institutions to HBCUs. Black students have options (formed by necessity) so they will be fine.

Love what is going on at Jackson state

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope that the downfall of AA will support the current shift in enrollment from white institutions to HBCUs. Black students have options (formed by necessity) so they will be fine.

I thought diversity was important.
Why would you go to a school with 80+% of the same race.

m
Interesting question.

My friend has 6 daughters and 1 son, she sent him to an all boys school to balance the diversity of his experience in life.

[Anonymous]

The people that win are firms t20’s will hire to defend them vecsuse what will happen is they’ll keep thinking of ways to skirt the upcoming ruling and new lawsuits will keep getting filed.

T20s are gonna be in literally 365 days of the year litigation for years on end regarding this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hope that the downfall of AA will support the current shift in enrollment from white institutions to HBCUs. Black students have options (formed by necessity) so they will be fine. [/quote

Believe it or not, most colleges don't use AA in admissions.

The top PWIs do to some extent.

For the Harvard types, not much will change. Classes will still be diverse.

Look out for Test Optional becoming more prevalent.

[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: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.

These points remain mostly ignored because they do not comport with embraced narratives.

Asians don't want free points at any school.
They just want fair and square competition.

Clearly your definition of "fair and square" competition does not align with the standards Harvard uses. Are Harvard's standards unfair because they don't give you the outcome you desire?

Harvard standard is unfair because it discriminates based on race.
Do I have to tell you this after 70 some pages?

70 pages later I have yet to see the evidence of discrimination.

As any statistician will tell you, %s can be deceiving.

What is the breakdown/number of applicants? What is the breakdown/number of admittees?

+1 without raw numbers the chart is meaningless.

If 40000 White people applied and only 1000 AA that’s meaningful , if it’s opposite well that would be wild

Why does it matter? Is it ok to subject applicants to different standard based on race if few applicants of a certain race apply?

Come on.

Either you don’t understand how statistics work, or you do, and you are knowingly using these numbers/this graph to make a point that you realize isn’t entirely the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope that the downfall of AA will support the current shift in enrollment from white institutions to HBCUs. Black students have options (formed by necessity) so they will be fine.

I thought diversity was important.
Why would you go to a school with 80+% of the same race.

Important to who? It's not at all important to me. I get nothing out of it. In fact it imposes significant costs on me.

I would go to school "with 80+% of the same race" because school is about learning not about being around other races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope that the downfall of AA will support the current shift in enrollment from white institutions to HBCUs. Black students have options (formed by necessity) so they will be fine.

I thought diversity was important.
Why would you go to a school with 80+% of the same race.

So the Asians who live in predominantly Asians communities don't care about diversity?
Make it make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope that the downfall of AA will support the current shift in enrollment from white institutions to HBCUs. Black students have options (formed by necessity) so they will be fine.

I thought diversity was important.
Why would you go to a school with 80+% of the same race.

Important to who? It's not at all important to me. I get nothing out of it. In fact it imposes significant costs on me.

I would go to school "with 80+% of the same race" because school is about learning not about being around other races.

Yes, school is about learning, but much of the learning that school is about takes place outside of the classroom. Students learn a lot from their fellow students; they learn many things that will be important to take forward into their adult lives.

College admissions officers know this. That is why they want to put together diverse classes where all the students can learn different lessons from each other.