So what is changing? Questions about SC affirmative action decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD is applying as NB gender / asexual to get around this, and I think this is a good tactic. For everyone concerned I’d encourage looking at this as a way to get around this BS from SCOTUS.

It's not a college tactic. That is your kid coming out. Good luck with your family!

[Anonymous]

It's such a complex issue.
I wrestle with how to remedy systemic poverty, inequities in the delivery and quality of education, provide the many kinds of social supports that taxpayers would support if they are effective. Yet I don't know the best way to do that.
Something that will change is that privileged majority families like ours will not be able to blame other people for "taking their spot", something I've heard a lot in the past couple of admissions cycles. The process is hard but it felt wrong to see the finger pointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's such a complex issue.
I wrestle with how to remedy systemic poverty, inequities in the delivery and quality of education, provide the many kinds of social supports that taxpayers would support if they are effective. Yet I don't know the best way to do that.
Something that will change is that privileged majority families like ours will not be able to blame other people for "taking their spot", something I've heard a lot in the past couple of admissions cycles. The process is hard but it felt wrong to see the finger pointing.

It will shift from blaming the poor kid to blaming the rural kid. Just keep in mind that there always has to be someone to blame

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the race box will go away.

Doubt it because universities still have to track race per DOE. Also, eliminating the box will prevent the ability to determine if non-URM applicants are being discriminated against.

Most likely race info will be masked in the admissions process.

Will applicants have a number instead of a name? I think you can often guess someone’s race pretty accurately based on their surname alone.

You can infer race from name and home address using AI—but you can couch the preference as economic or geographic or whatever. I think selective colleges will adopt these workarounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's such a complex issue.
I wrestle with how to remedy systemic poverty, inequities in the delivery and quality of education, provide the many kinds of social supports that taxpayers would support if they are effective. Yet I don't know the best way to do that.
Something that will change is that privileged majority families like ours will not be able to blame other people for "taking their spot", something I've heard a lot in the past couple of admissions cycles. The process is hard but it felt wrong to see the finger pointing.

The gravy train has come to an end, as they all must. People have to work for a living. Not a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Colleges will have to weigh their desire to collect “high stats” kids against the choice to takes chances on unpolished gems whi are so often less privileged. AA gave them an easy out - they could collect higher stats from privileged kids and make “exceptions” to advance their institutional priorities.

[Anonymous]

If everyone would just let go of their obsession with “ranking” colleges, it would be much easier for colleges to collect an interesting group of students based on the unique attributes they bring to the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's really no way to make this race neutral unless names are masked.

🙄 DCUM thinks every black person is named Shawntavious Jackson and every white is named Wentworth Vanderbilt or something.

LoL. Names some mean much. My very white nephews have the same last name as a couple well-known Black actors. My half-Asian nieces have a last name that is typically considered Jewish, although our family is not Jewish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if today's ruling will affect professional schools, such as medical school or law school? Affirmative action makes more sense to me for professional schools, for the same reason that you want a police force to roughly reflect the racial makeup of the community they serve. Similarly, doctors will be better able to serve a community if their racial makeup reflects that of the community they serve.

The court did not apply this holding to the military academies, as the interests at stake in these cases could lead to a different result

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's such a complex issue.
I wrestle with how to remedy systemic poverty, inequities in the delivery and quality of education, provide the many kinds of social supports that taxpayers would support if they are effective. Yet I don't know the best way to do that.
Something that will change is that privileged majority families like ours will not be able to blame other people for "taking their spot", something I've heard a lot in the past couple of admissions cycles. The process is hard but it felt wrong to see the finger pointing.

It will shift from blaming the poor kid to blaming the rural kid. Just keep in mind that there always has to be someone to blame

Sadly, I think you will be right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if today's ruling will affect professional schools, such as medical school or law school? Affirmative action makes more sense to me for professional schools, for the same reason that you want a police force to roughly reflect the racial makeup of the community they serve. Similarly, doctors will be better able to serve a community if their racial makeup reflects that of the community they serve.

The court did not apply this holding to the military academies, as the interests at stake in these cases could lead to a different result

It didn't apply to military academies because the administration specifically spoke to the role of AA at the academies and the president is given an incredible amount of deference when it comes to the military. I don't see any reason that professional schools would get similar treatment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if today's ruling will affect professional schools, such as medical school or law school? Affirmative action makes more sense to me for professional schools, for the same reason that you want a police force to roughly reflect the racial makeup of the community they serve. Similarly, doctors will be better able to serve a community if their racial makeup reflects that of the community they serve.

The court did not apply this holding to the military academies, as the interests at stake in these cases could lead to a different result

Yes, it applies to professional schools. My law school dean (and I'm sure many others) already released a statement.

[Anonymous]

I think college admissions officers are going to get very tired of reading essays about how race affected my life...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think college admissions officers are going to get very tired of reading essays about how race affected my life...

There is nothing to stop them from saying that we are race blind and will disregard any applicant whose essay focuses on race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's such a complex issue.
I wrestle with how to remedy systemic poverty, inequities in the delivery and quality of education, provide the many kinds of social supports that taxpayers would support if they are effective. Yet I don't know the best way to do that.
Something that will change is that privileged majority families like ours will not be able to blame other people for "taking their spot", something I've heard a lot in the past couple of admissions cycles. The process is hard but it felt wrong to see the finger pointing.

The gravy train has come to an end, as they all must. People have to work for a living. Not a bad thing.

But now, thanks to Uncle Clarence and the Billionaire Boys' Club, Republicans can cry "religious exemption" whenever they're too lazy or opioid-addled to put in a day's work.