NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences

[Anonymous]

The goal of the conservative plaintiff SFFA ( spearheaded by Edward Blum) is to reduce black and Hispanic college enrollment - already low - even further. Asians are just being used as
"model minority" pawns this time since white plaintiffs ( Bakke, Grutter, Gratz and Fisher) didn't fully accomplish its objective. The conservative SCOTUS will ban AA, but not much will change. The selective colleges will still be predominantly white, Asian and UMC. Colleges will continue to use test optional to try and maintain the little bit of URM diversity it already has.

ED and legacy admissions won't get adversely impacted since SFFA wants to maintain that piece of the college admissions status quo for whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

Men at the bottom rung won’t find matches either. You can see what’s happening in China. Women at the top and men at the bottom will be unpartnered. I don’t see it as a bad thing. We need less people on Earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

If women don’t need men for economic support and can have children without a romantic partner, why are they crying? I’m stressed they can find a friend with benefits. In many ways, woman’s lives are easier if they have a partner who isn’t helping with childcare and running the house. He’s just dead weight you have to add to your task list. Or you are divorced and having to navigate joint custody with a ex.

This demographic shift is already well underway. Platonic parenting is becoming increasingly popular.

https://www.parents.com/parenting/dynamics/how-platonic-parenting-works/

Or, women can get a fulfilling job, buy a small house and make it their own, have a supportive social circle and hire a maintenance guy. Or learn to DIY.

My SILis mid 40s and single with a high powered job. She waited for Prince Charming. Then looked into single parenthood. Then settled into being my kids third parent. She is their favorite person in the world. As they have gotten older they have at times spent a month or more with her, volunteering or doing online summer school while SIL worked. She and I travel, she travels with friends, and she took each of my kids on a big graduation trip. As long as DH or I or our kids are alive, she will always have family— for holidays, for emergencies, for “I just want to see you”.

The demographic shift is here and women aren’t crying. They are just building lives without men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

Men at the bottom rung won’t find matches either. You can see what’s happening in China. Women at the top and men at the bottom will be unpartnered. I don’t see it as a bad thing. We need less people on Earth.

Wtf is this view? Ecofascist mom who wants to kill people so her kid can get into a better college?

[Anonymous]

Educated women marrying blue-collar men can work out. Noted feminist Germaine Greer married a truck driver. Naomi Wolf married her body guard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Educated women marrying blue-collar men can work out. Noted feminist Germaine Greer married a truck driver. Naomi Wolf married her body guard.

+1
Sweden’s crown princess Victoria married her trainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Educated women marrying blue-collar men can work out. Noted feminist Germaine Greer married a truck driver. Naomi Wolf married her body guard.

And if you are rich enough to hire unlimited help, that’s great. But certainly you don’t think many women would sign on to be primary breadwinner, primary parent, run the house, etc. your blue collar man going to raising the kids and have dinner on the table at 6 and accept a partner prioritizing work.

My good friend is a managing partner of a law firm. Married her HS sweetheart who had a GED and worked construction. It worked when he was 25 and doing manual labor while she was in law school and studied 24/7. But then she outearned him by multiples and it made no sense for him to work. And it went south in the ugliest way possible. He took care of the kids and house and resented the 70 hour weeks. He was angry and resentful. He became paranoid that she was having an affair (she was not) and obsessed with the idea that she would leave him because she could “do better”. There was drug abuse. There was serious domestic violence (she was hospitalized twice, (once after her 8 year old snuck away and called 911 because she was unconscious). There was marital raped. She left him 3 times over 2 years before it stuck. He’s a home less druggies living in a tent. He has no right to see his kids (that’s how ugly it was). She’s rebuilding her life, but went through hell.

There are women who have been conditioned to accept responsibility for the home and kids in exchange for economic support, which the husband often controls. There may be a Swedish princess who can have this fairy tale. But in American society, not a lot of men who will take on the second shift labor and be okay with managing the household after being given an allowance. We aren’t raised with those societal roles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Pushing equal opportunities in K-12 is not going to make Asian Americans more likely to play football. Nor is it going to make white Americans more willing to take 12-17 AP exams. In fact the white Americans with the best access to opportunity, private school students, simply colluded to stop taking AP exams altogether. It’s also pretty clear that Asian American families with HHIs in the $100-$300k range are far more willing than Black and white families in that range to stretch financially for a high-ranked school. None of those things is going to change with additional access to opportunity. They are decisions based on different
cultural values.

Not sure why any intelligent person would want their children to play football.

Well, if that’s what it takes to get a white kid into HYP some will say yes.

Dumb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Educated women marrying blue-collar men can work out. Noted feminist Germaine Greer married a truck driver. Naomi Wolf married her body guard.

And if you are rich enough to hire unlimited help, that’s great. But certainly you don’t think many women would sign on to be primary breadwinner, primary parent, run the house, etc. your blue collar man going to raising the kids and have dinner on the table at 6 and accept a partner prioritizing work.

My good friend is a managing partner of a law firm. Married her HS sweetheart who had a GED and worked construction. It worked when he was 25 and doing manual labor while she was in law school and studied 24/7. But then she outearned him by multiples and it made no sense for him to work. And it went south in the ugliest way possible. He took care of the kids and house and resented the 70 hour weeks. He was angry and resentful. He became paranoid that she was having an affair (she was not) and obsessed with the idea that she would leave him because she could “do better”. There was drug abuse. There was serious domestic violence (she was hospitalized twice, (once after her 8 year old snuck away and called 911 because she was unconscious). There was marital raped. She left him 3 times over 2 years before it stuck. He’s a home less druggies living in a tent. He has no right to see his kids (that’s how ugly it was). She’s rebuilding her life, but went through hell.

There are women who have been conditioned to accept responsibility for the home and kids in exchange for economic support, which the husband often controls. There may be a Swedish princess who can have this fairy tale. But in American society, not a lot of men who will take on the second shift labor and be okay with managing the household after being given an allowance. We aren’t raised with those societal roles.

And how wonderful that she had the economic resources she could walk away from that. Marrying a rich man doesn’t mean you won’t be abused. With this economic freedom many options expand, including building a family without mediocre men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Then the same would go for the preference boys currently get for anything other than engineering and cs.

Neither has to happen as gender/sex aren’t subject to strict scrutiny like race is. That’s intermediate scrutiny, if memory serves.

Ask VMI how this is going to go.

Well, first you are going to have to define how you define gender. How do you factor in the non binary applicants, or the trans applicant?

Race is even a more anti-scientific concept; I wonder why Asian Americans with dark skin don't simply mark Black in their applications.

It worked for Mindy Kaling's brother.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/living/feat-mindy-kaling-brother-affirmative-action/index.html

I mean.. why not? If a man can identify as a woman and vice versa, then people with very dark skin, no matter their race, could identify as African American. Let's be honest.. people treat you based on your skin color, and a very dark skinned Asian is going to be treated negatively as opposed to a very light skinned Asian.

[Anonymous]

Wealthy white people with academically underperforming—dumb-ish, if you will—kids found a workaround with rich people sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Then the same would go for the preference boys currently get for anything other than engineering and cs.

Neither has to happen as gender/sex aren’t subject to strict scrutiny like race is. That’s intermediate scrutiny, if memory serves.

Ask VMI how this is going to go.

Well, first you are going to have to define how you define gender. How do you factor in the non binary applicants, or the trans applicant?

Race is even a more anti-scientific concept; I wonder why Asian Americans with dark skin don't simply mark Black in their applications.

It worked for Mindy Kaling's brother.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/living/feat-mindy-kaling-brother-affirmative-action/index.html

Fascinating read, I had no idea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

Men at the bottom rung won’t find matches either. You can see what’s happening in China. Women at the top and men at the bottom will be unpartnered. I don’t see it as a bad thing. We need less people on Earth.

Wtf is this view? Ecofascist mom who wants to kill people so her kid can get into a better college?

NP--Wow, that's a serious talent for twisting someone's words so they're unrecognizable you've got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy white people with academically underperforming—dumb-ish, if you will—kids found a workaround with rich people sports.

There's some truth to this. I was reading graduation reports from some schools. Schools like Emory have low White male graduation rates, even when compared to black males