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:Harvard has 6.56% Black students
Yale has 6.53% Black students
Princeton has 10% Black students (undergrad)

Can someone please explain to me how this is unacceptable to folks? Would y'all prefer those percentages be 0%??


https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvard-university#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Harvard%20University%20is%2039.7%25%20White,Hawaiian%20or%20Other%20Pacific%20Islanders.
https://datausa.io/profile/university/yale-university
https://inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics

I honestly don't care whether those student bodies are 30% black or 3% black, so long as the admissions factors are race-neutral. I don't want a college excluding or including anyone because of the color of their skin.

Most people who say this mean they want a way to game admissions in their favor. The last thing they want is a fair process.

Nothing in elite private college admissions is "fair."

They are the "sellers" here and will pick whomever they want to shape a class.

The North Carolina portion of the case is the much more important part. State schools don't have the resources to carefully curate a class- they have to be formulaic. Eliminating race from the formula will change the composition of the student body. Cal is just now getting back to where they were prior to AA being banned in California and they are spending a fortune to get there. States where it is banned that haven't gone that route have see African American enrollment plummet. Do you really think the NC legislature will let UNC do the spend? What about Wisconsin or Ohio?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard has 6.56% Black students
Yale has 6.53% Black students
Princeton has 10% Black students (undergrad)

Can someone please explain to me how this is unacceptable to folks? Would y'all prefer those percentages be 0%??


https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvard-university#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Harvard%20University%20is%2039.7%25%20White,Hawaiian%20or%20Other%20Pacific%20Islanders.
https://datausa.io/profile/university/yale-university
https://inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics

I honestly don't care whether those student bodies are 30% black or 3% black, so long as the admissions factors are race-neutral. I don't want a college excluding or including anyone because of the color of their skin.

At lot of Asians come from countries where test scores are the determining factor for state college admission (in some countries private universities is a very new thing). It is all they know. Study hard, get good grades and test scores so you can hopefully get into a good state university. It is why some can't understand why the same process does not work, and will never work, in the U.S. Private institutions will always find a way to gerrymander the applicants to get the desired mix of students.
Most people who say this mean they want a way to game admissions in their favor. The last thing they want is a fair process.

Nothing in elite private college admissions is "fair."

They are the "sellers" here and will pick whomever they want to shape a class.

At lot of Asians come from countries where test scores are the determining factor for state college admission (in some countries private universities is a very new thing). It is all they know. Study hard, get good grades and test scores so you can hopefully get into a good state university. It is why some can't understand why the same process does not work, and will never work, in the U.S. Private institutions will always find a way to gerrymander the applicants to get the desired mix of students.
Most people who say this mean they want a way to game admissions in their favor. The last thing they want is a fair process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard has 6.56% Black students
Yale has 6.53% Black students
Princeton has 10% Black students (undergrad)

Can someone please explain to me how this is unacceptable to folks? Would y'all prefer those percentages be 0%??


https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvard-university#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Harvard%20University%20is%2039.7%25%20White,Hawaiian%20or%20Other%20Pacific%20Islanders.
https://datausa.io/profile/university/yale-university
https://inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics

I honestly don't care whether those student bodies are 30% black or 3% black, so long as the admissions factors are race-neutral. I don't want a college excluding or including anyone because of the color of their skin.

The same UNC that picks low scoring students over high scoring black students?
Most people who say this mean they want a way to game admissions in their favor. The last thing they want is a fair process.

Nothing in elite private college admissions is "fair."

They are the "sellers" here and will pick whomever they want to shape a class.

The North Carolina portion of the case is the much more important part. State schools don't have the resources to carefully curate a class- they have to be formulaic. Eliminating race from the formula will change the composition of the student body. Cal is just now getting back to where they were prior to AA being banned in California and they are spending a fortune to get there. States where it is banned that haven't gone that route have see African American enrollment plummet. Do you really think the NC legislature will let UNC do the spend? What about Wisconsin or Ohio?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard has 6.56% Black students
Yale has 6.53% Black students
Princeton has 10% Black students (undergrad)

Can someone please explain to me how this is unacceptable to folks? Would y'all prefer those percentages be 0%??


https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvard-university#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Harvard%20University%20is%2039.7%25%20White,Hawaiian%20or%20Other%20Pacific%20Islanders.
https://datausa.io/profile/university/yale-university
https://inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics

I honestly don't care whether those student bodies are 30% black or 3% black, so long as the admissions factors are race-neutral. I don't want a college excluding or including anyone because of the color of their skin.

Lol race-neutral…. Let’s create a selection criteria that picks me and my people that just doesn’t include “race”

[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: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.

So if it's hypothetically far more skewed than it actually is, then the numbers matter in your hypothetical. Great

No. You need the numbers, the % is literally meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The majority of Asian Americans support race conscious admissions.

Support:

Korean 82%
Indian 80%
Asian Americans Overall 69%
Filipino 67%
Vietnamese 67%
Japanese 65%
Chinese 59%

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaQl6pUoAA4Gir?format=jpg&name=small

+1

There was a sizable Asian contingent outside of the Supreme Court building during Monday's cases supporting AA. Maybe they were not mostly Japanese or Chinese.

There was an Asian group aligned with SFFA " protesting" that prior Sunday. Guess they were scared to show up on Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nebulous concept.
Please share the long-term studies with statistics (GPA, GRE/LSAT/MCAT scores, postgraduate study acceptance rates, graduation rates, avg starting salaries, etc.) proving "diverse" classes foster a climate of success for ALL students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nebulous concept.
Please share the long-term studies with statistics (GPA, GRE/LSAT/MCAT scores, postgraduate study acceptance rates, graduation rates, avg starting salaries, etc.) proving "diverse" classes foster a climate of success for ALL students.

Why not provide a study that shows it doesn’t?

[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: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.

So if it's hypothetically far more skewed than it actually is, then the numbers matter in your hypothetical. Great

No. You need the numbers, the % is literally meaningless.

As long as the numbers are large enough, you don't need specifics. In this case, Harvard gets about 6,000 black applicants a year

[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: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.

So if it's hypothetically far more skewed than it actually is, then the numbers matter in your hypothetical. Great

No. You need the numbers, the % is literally meaningless.

As long as the numbers are large enough, you don't need specifics. In this case, Harvard gets about 6,000 black applicants a year

Link to these numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard has 6.56% Black students
Yale has 6.53% Black students
Princeton has 10% Black students (undergrad)

Can someone please explain to me how this is unacceptable to folks? Would y'all prefer those percentages be 0%??


https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvard-university#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Harvard%20University%20is%2039.7%25%20White,Hawaiian%20or%20Other%20Pacific%20Islanders.
https://datausa.io/profile/university/yale-university
https://inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics

I honestly don't care whether those student bodies are 30% black or 3% black, so long as the admissions factors are race-neutral. I don't want a college excluding or including anyone because of the color of their skin.

Lol race-neutral…. Let’s create a selection criteria that picks me and my people that just doesn’t include “race”

LOL. If you really can’t think of any race-neutral criteria that include URMs within their scope, then you’re probably not college material anyway.

[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: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.

Thank you SO much for explaining this so clearly. While I think some comments in this thread have been willfully obtuse, I hope that your explanation will provide lightbulb moments for people who genuinely want to understand the statistics and what they might actually mean.

Thanks for your positive feedback… I actually thought oh wait maybe people don’t understand the math, let me explain it.

I think it would also be interesting to see the rankings of the kids that GOT accepted vs those that didnt WITHIN the individual race groups. Would Asian Americans still be pissed if an Asian kid who scored lower than their kid got in? Or is it just when they "LOSE" a spot to an unqualified black person?

Keep in mind that this suit is — or at least may be — less about Asian Americans being “pissed” and more about groups like “Students for Fair Admissions” pushing an anti- affirmative action agenda while encouraging members of minority groups to fight amongst themselves.
“Fairness” sounds great — but I’m quite suspicious of the motives of those whose concerns about “fairness” only popped up as members of minority groups finally began to gain access to resources like high quality higher education.

[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: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.

Thank you SO much for explaining this so clearly. While I think some comments in this thread have been willfully obtuse, I hope that your explanation will provide lightbulb moments for people who genuinely want to understand the statistics and what they might actually mean.

Thanks for your positive feedback… I actually thought oh wait maybe people don’t understand the math, let me explain it.

I think it would also be interesting to see the rankings of the kids that GOT accepted vs those that didnt WITHIN the individual race groups. Would Asian Americans still be pissed if an Asian kid who scored lower than their kid got in? Or is it just when they "LOSE" a spot to an unqualified black person?

Keep in mind that this suit is — or at least may be — less about Asian Americans being “pissed” and more about groups like “Students for Fair Admissions” pushing an anti- affirmative action agenda while encouraging members of minority groups to fight amongst themselves.
“Fairness” sounds great — but I’m quite suspicious of the motives of those whose concerns about “fairness” only popped up as members of minority groups finally began to gain access to resources like high quality higher education.

It's about turning asian americans towards the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard has 6.56% Black students
Yale has 6.53% Black students
Princeton has 10% Black students (undergrad)

Can someone please explain to me how this is unacceptable to folks? Would y'all prefer those percentages be 0%??


https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvard-university#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Harvard%20University%20is%2039.7%25%20White,Hawaiian%20or%20Other%20Pacific%20Islanders.
https://datausa.io/profile/university/yale-university
https://inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics

I honestly don't care whether those student bodies are 30% black or 3% black, so long as the admissions factors are race-neutral. I don't want a college excluding or including anyone because of the color of their skin.

At lot of Asians come from countries where test scores are the determining factor for state college admission (in some countries private universities is a very new thing). It is all they know. Study hard, get good grades and test scores so you can hopefully get into a good state university. It is why some can't understand why the same process does not work, and will never work, in the U.S. Private institutions will always find a way to gerrymander the applicants to get the desired mix of students.
Most people who say this mean they want a way to game admissions in their favor. The last thing they want is a fair process.

Nothing in elite private college admissions is "fair."

They are the "sellers" here and will pick whomever they want to shape a class.

At lot of Asians come from countries where test scores are the determining factor for state college admission (in some countries private universities is a very new thing). It is all they know. Study hard, get good grades and test scores so you can hopefully get into a good state university. It is why some can't understand why the same process does not work, and will never work, in the U.S. Private institutions will always find a way to gerrymander the applicants to get the desired mix of students.
Most people who say this mean they want a way to game admissions in their favor. The last thing they want is a fair process.

+1

Agree. But as an immigrant, I would have appreciated someone tell me 1.) test scores are not the only way to get an education in the U.S. and 2.) Not everyone can go "ivy" 3.) Plenty of Americans attend great schools, too 4.) Everyone goes to college nowadays, which means the US is now as competitive as any other country. Lastly, 5.) the "stupid American" sentiment is overused - and no longer accurate

[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: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.

Thank you SO much for explaining this so clearly. While I think some comments in this thread have been willfully obtuse, I hope that your explanation will provide lightbulb moments for people who genuinely want to understand the statistics and what they might actually mean.

Thanks for your positive feedback… I actually thought oh wait maybe people don’t understand the math, let me explain it.

I think it would also be interesting to see the rankings of the kids that GOT accepted vs those that didnt WITHIN the individual race groups. Would Asian Americans still be pissed if an Asian kid who scored lower than their kid got in? Or is it just when they "LOSE" a spot to an unqualified black person?

Keep in mind that this suit is — or at least may be — less about Asian Americans being “pissed” and more about groups like “Students for Fair Admissions” pushing an anti- affirmative action agenda while encouraging members of minority groups to fight amongst themselves.
“Fairness” sounds great — but I’m quite suspicious of the motives of those whose concerns about “fairness” only popped up as members of minority groups finally began to gain access to resources like high quality higher education.

Isn't "fair" a representation of who lives in the US??