Post SCOTUS Ruling: Let the Essays Begin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Threads like this are so pathetic. Your white kid is and will be FINE. Your Asian kid is FINE. STFU already.

Black kids are also FINE. What’s your point?

That they’re fine too and god damned well deserve a little help and the rest of you need to get over it

Thread after thread and page after page of whites and Asians complaining about how hard you have it. YOU DON’T.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

To extend this further, are you suggesting that colleges will feel pressure to deny URMs specifically, keep their numbers down, to avoid litigation?

Whites, too. At high SAT scores there are many more Asians in the applicant pool than whites; an argument can be made that pretty much all elite colleges should be majority Asian. When Harvard increased the number of seats they offered to Asians, they decreased the number they offered to whites.

Good. Colllege should be a meritocracy. Non-Asians shouldn't be there without the scores.

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

The people you are arguing against believe that there is no such thing as “academic ability.” Worse academic performance by POC students is always and everywhere due to racist institutions or practices. Crazy, I know, but that is what they really think.

And here is where you can see the true beliefs of the anti affirmative action people on display.

So you think there’s no such thing as academic ability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Threads like this are so pathetic. Your white kid is and will be FINE. Your Asian kid is FINE. STFU already.

Black kids are also FINE. What’s your point?

That they’re fine too and god damned well deserve a little help and the rest of you need to get over it

Thread after thread and page after page of whites and Asians complaining about how hard you have it. YOU DON’T.

Nigerian immigrants don’t have it hard either. Schools could just admit people who DO have it hard by admitting for low SES but they won’t do that because they actually want non-ADOS black people for diversity only. Not to give needy kids a leg up.

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

The people you are arguing against believe that there is no such thing as “academic ability.” Worse academic performance by POC students is always and everywhere due to racist institutions or practices. Crazy, I know, but that is what they really think.

And here is where you can see the true beliefs of the anti affirmative action people on display.

So you think there’s no such thing as academic ability?

What was that whooshing sound I just heard?

[Anonymous]

It is Saturday afternoon. I've been out for a walk. Played ball with one of my kids. Helped one with piano practice. Spoke with my neighbors. Now I am going to take the kids.to see their grandparents.

I hope to God the rest of you have been able to enjoy your blessings.

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

The people you are arguing against believe that there is no such thing as “academic ability.” Worse academic performance by POC students is always and everywhere due to racist institutions or practices. Crazy, I know, but that is what they really think.

And here is where you can see the true beliefs of the anti affirmative action people on display.

So you think there’s no such thing as academic ability?

What was that whooshing sound I just heard?

It was the point sailing clean over your head.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

The people you are arguing against believe that there is no such thing as “academic ability.” Worse academic performance by POC students is always and everywhere due to racist institutions or practices. Crazy, I know, but that is what they really think.

And here is where you can see the true beliefs of the anti affirmative action people on display.

So you think there’s no such thing as academic ability?

What was that whooshing sound I just heard?

It was the point sailing clean over your head.

Those beliefs of yours keep on keeping you from understanding why those talking points just don’t do the job.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

The people you are arguing against believe that there is no such thing as “academic ability.” Worse academic performance by POC students is always and everywhere due to racist institutions or practices. Crazy, I know, but that is what they really think.

And here is where you can see the true beliefs of the anti affirmative action people on display.

So you think there’s no such thing as academic ability?

What was that whooshing sound I just heard?

It was the point sailing clean over your head.

Those beliefs of yours keep on keeping you from understanding why those talking points just don’t do the job.

I’m not the PP, but I agree with them that academic ability exists.

More importantly, I’m very done with “atmospheric diversity,” where we give rich black immigrants the boost that we claim is to right the wrongs done to ADOS people. Because the point isn’t really to help black people, ADOS or otherwise. It’s to create a vibe acceptable to white people.

And they don’t like an overly Asian vibe. Not one bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Threads like this are so pathetic. Your white kid is and will be FINE. Your Asian kid is FINE. STFU already.

Black kids are also FINE. What’s your point?

That they’re fine too and god damned well deserve a little help and the rest of you need to get over it

Thread after thread and page after page of whites and Asians complaining about how hard you have it. YOU DON’T.

Nigerian immigrants don’t have it hard either. Schools could just admit people who DO have it hard by admitting for low SES but they won’t do that because they actually want non-ADOS black people for diversity only. Not to give needy kids a leg up.

??? The Nigerian immigrants we know are FARMs families. That is one big generalization there.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

The people you are arguing against believe that there is no such thing as “academic ability.” Worse academic performance by POC students is always and everywhere due to racist institutions or practices. Crazy, I know, but that is what they really think.

And here is where you can see the true beliefs of the anti affirmative action people on display.

So you think there’s no such thing as academic ability?

What was that whooshing sound I just heard?

It was the point sailing clean over your head.

Those beliefs of yours keep on keeping you from understanding why those talking points just don’t do the job.

I’m not the PP, but I agree with them that academic ability exists.

More importantly, I’m very done with “atmospheric diversity,” where we give rich black immigrants the boost that we claim is to right the wrongs done to ADOS people. Because the point isn’t really to help black people, ADOS or otherwise. It’s to create a vibe acceptable to white people.

And they don’t like an overly Asian vibe. Not one bit.

Yep. When TJ became more white than Asian, white applications fell by half. And that’s in liberal Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

To extend this further, are you suggesting that colleges will feel pressure to deny URMs specifically, keep their numbers down, to avoid litigation?

Whites, too. At high SAT scores there are many more Asians in the applicant pool than whites; an argument can be made that pretty much all elite colleges should be majority Asian. When Harvard increased the number of seats they offered to Asians, they decreased the number they offered to whites.

Good. Colllege should be a meritocracy. Non-Asians shouldn't be there without the scores.

So much to unpack here. The assumption that scores are the indicator of merit. They aren't. The idea that college admissions is a head to head competition about merit -- it isn't. It's about education, creating a diverse learning environment is part of the learning experience. The idea that Asian test scores are a given, since PP only wants to require them of non Asians. That speaks to certain cultures' (not all Asians) emphasis on test prep and enrichment. All of this points to that, really.
So much bias here.

[Anonymous]

It's amazing how swiftly any cares about equity went out the window after SCOTUS struck down affirmative action, thereby boosting chances of admission for whites. I see the glee and excuses and it's shocking.

[Anonymous]

reminds me of the TJ changes glee, which also boosted white admissions.

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

There’s a pretty big difference between a for profit business with the goal of selling a product to the public and non-profit academic institutions which provide educational opportunities to students. There is nothing the least bit similar about the goals and purposes of these organizations so it makes no sense at all to compare their selection procedures.

Clearly someone came up with this talking point years ago and keeps sending it out for people to use. They think it’s is very clever, but it is actually too clever by half, as it simply shows in what regard the people who use this talking point have for the people they are trying to persuade.

Colleges are also “selling a product to the public” and they are non profit in name only, as the ginormous endowments of these institutions illustrates. They select students based on a competitive admissions process, and the competition to get to the top level if fierce. It’s not that different.

Are you dumb? The point is that if diversity is do necessary for colleges to give great education to the students and prepare them for the future, then why isn't it necessary for the NBA to deliver a great game and prepare their players to be leaders?

The answer is simple. Diversity is NOT NECESSARY FOR EITHER. Your can produce great research without being diverse, just like your can produce great games with no diversity


By the way an even better example is Spellman college which overwhelmingly black. Are supporters of Affirmative Action willing to tarnish all HBCU's as producing substandard graduates with a poor educational experience because they are not diverse?