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:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"academic" (sic)

Legacy blind?

Athletic ability blind?

Private school blind?

Gender blind. Inferior male students can't be admitted just to have a male female balance

Military status.

Veterans currently receive preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom didn't go to any college and I didn't go to college in US, my daughter is underprivileged as a first generation applying to American colleges but she has to compete against students whose parents understand this system. She can beat them but being an Asian, she is in a limited quota group so less desirable than underachievers of other quota groups.

It is a fallacy that that there is a quota, and it is a fallacy that the kids who got into whatever school you are talking about are underachievers. They do not force rank admissions based on a single test, nor should they.

If no qouta, why use race in admission?
Who said single test??

Affirmative action is not a quota system. If you didn't bother to find out what AA is, why are you arguing about it?

Quota is form or method of Affirmative Action.
Duh

[Anonymous]

Discussing the implications on other protected classes 'down the road', gender, religion etc... As well as other non protected classes, main one being legacy.

[Anonymous]

Plaintiffs lawyers just agreed that considering factors (tipping the scale) for the following is okay:

Men (gender enrollment considerations)
Legacies
Immigrants.

But race is not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plaintiffs lawyers just agreed that considering factors (tipping the scale) for the following is okay:

Men (gender enrollment considerations)
Legacies
Immigrants.

But race is not!

Yeah, not a sound legal argument

[Anonymous]

Thomas: Give me proof.
Lawyer: Cites proof using investment portfolio performance example.
Thomas: I don't believe that.

Geez.

[Anonymous]

Good God Clarence!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom didn't go to any college and I didn't go to college in US, my daughter is underprivileged as a first generation applying to American colleges but she has to compete against students whose parents understand this system. She can beat them but being an Asian, she is in a limited quota group so less desirable than underachievers of other quota groups.

It is a fallacy that that there is a quota, and it is a fallacy that the kids who got into whatever school you are talking about are underachievers. They do not force rank admissions based on a single test, nor should they.

If no qouta, why use race in admission?
Who said single test??

Affirmative action is not a quota system. If you didn't bother to find out what AA is, why are you arguing about it?

Why don't you eyeball the percentages of admits by race at your local ivy and get back to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm less concerned about letting in some URM kids who score lower than rich legacies (mostly white) who use money to buy their way in, a la the Trumps and Bushes.

If universities can let in whomever they want, then why can't they let in URM who may not score higher than a rich white kid?

Universities have been using legacies forever, including as a way to keep the "undesirables" out.

Fix that first. All it does it keep the privilege within a group of mostly rich white people.

-Asian American

Asians are hit the hardest and are not urm. Don't be stupid.

-asian american

pp here.. no sh1t, but as far as "fair" is concerned, legacy admits is much more unfair as a whole than letting in URM with lower scores.

There is no altruism in the current system. Agree that legacy is unfair but also having lower academic standards for certain people based on race is unfair too.

At least the current practice has some altruistic value. Legacy admits is just purely about privilege and greed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will this affect universities trying for gender parity? Eg 39,000 female applicants and 22,000 make applicants but they admit males at higher rate to have a near 50-50 class?

Depends on how narrow or wide the SC rules against affirmative action.

Forgot to add that Noah Feldman (Harvard Law) addressed this:

Universities would no longer be allowed to pursue racial diversity, gender diversity, sexual orientation diversity or religious diversity. (They would still be allowed to pursue economic diversity, class diversity, viewpoint diversity and geographic diversity, because these categories aren’t protected against discrimination by the Constitution or civil rights laws.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/supreme-court-will-end-the-era-of-college-diversity/2022/10/16/4716c656-4d53-11ed-ada8-04e6e6bf8b19_story.html

Given how polarized and segregated we all are, location and class are almost as good predictor of race as the ethnicity box. Some clever admission officers will be able to achieve all the diversity they want by using allowed criteria— hopefully

Not helpful for gender/sex, though.

Gender will auto-correct though. Both male and female students will select schools that their own gender isn't overly over-represented in.

It'll force universities to cater to interests of both genders instead of being outright discriminatory in the admissions process.

Engineering schools will need to provide better art and design-related coursework and a more collaborative environment to attract women.
Liberal arts schools will need to provide better physics/math/CS/business/philosophy related coursework and less gender studies to attract men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom didn't go to any college and I didn't go to college in US, my daughter is underprivileged as a first generation applying to American colleges but she has to compete against students whose parents understand this system. She can beat them but being an Asian, she is in a limited quota group so less desirable than underachievers of other quota groups.

It is a fallacy that that there is a quota, and it is a fallacy that the kids who got into whatever school you are talking about are underachievers. They do not force rank admissions based on a single test, nor should they.

If no qouta, why use race in admission?
Who said single test??

Affirmative action is not a quota system. If you didn't bother to find out what AA is, why are you arguing about it?

A judge is exactly asking that right now 'how do you achive diversity without counting numbers'quota''
Lawyer is not making any sense and failed to answer.

[Anonymous]

"African Americans have a lower admissions rate than Whites
and Asian Americans at UNC."

Facts matter!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

Not really. It never was.

Not really what?? It should be for like country clubs??

Why not? The SAT is not in the Constitution.

Even country clubs are not allow to discriminate by law LOL

Not true. Country clubs are free to do what they want as long as they are distinctly private in character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

Not really. It never was.

Not really what?? It should be for like country clubs??

Why not? The SAT is not in the Constitution.

Even country clubs are not allow to discriminate by law LOL

Not true. Country clubs are free to do what they want as long as they are distinctly private in character.

No, Country clubs are not allow to discriminate against race by law.
You don't understand what 'freedom' is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom didn't go to any college and I didn't go to college in US, my daughter is underprivileged as a first generation applying to American colleges but she has to compete against students whose parents understand this system. She can beat them but being an Asian, she is in a limited quota group so less desirable than underachievers of other quota groups.

It is a fallacy that that there is a quota, and it is a fallacy that the kids who got into whatever school you are talking about are underachievers. They do not force rank admissions based on a single test, nor should they.

If no qouta, why use race in admission?
Who said single test??

Affirmative action is not a quota system. If you didn't bother to find out what AA is, why are you arguing about it?

A judge is exactly asking that right now 'how do you achive diversity without counting numbers'quota''
Lawyer is not making any sense and failed to answer.

Both sides' lawyers are stumbling a little. To be expected. The questions and hypotheticals are challenging; the Court is prepared. Personally I thought J. Thomas's comment that he had heard the same arguments in favor of segregation (re the investment group) to be thought provoking.