Supreme Court revisits Texas affirmative action in new case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful what you wish for. The California admissions system has resulted in increased Asian admissions. Not criticizing Asians, it's a fact that has occurred after picking based on scores.

So what?

UC Berkeley and UCLA DO NOT select based on score. They (unlike other UCs) use holistic review for admission process including many factors such as SES, first generation, challenges, single parent, leadership potential, activities, volunteering, personal essays, etc. as well as grades and test scores They are just prohibited from using race as one of those dozen or so factors.

In fact, They de-emphasize SAT scores in order to increase "diversity". That is why their average SAT score is around 2140 even with many Asians. It is not uncommon for Asians to be rejected by UC Berkeley with 2300 or higher SAT scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average black student gets admission to the University of Texas with a score hundreds of points lower than white or Asian students.

Then upon entering the University of Texas, they often flounder. The graduation rate for UT as a whole is 78%, but for black students it is about 60%. And undoubtedly, the black students that do graduate do so with lower grades. Given either the lack of graduation or graduating with poor grades, these black students then face an uncertain career.

How is this good for anybody?

Have you looked at the specific numbers based on all high schools since they take 10 percent of all high schools. I am sure that many of those black students are coming from segregated schools that are not as good. Texas is not known for it's great educational high school system. Do you have the specific details? Did you take into account finances? Family situations? I am assuming that since you gave your opinion and stated some data, that your data should be more thorough.

Black students make up a whopping 4.4 percent. Damn, can't we have have anything? Is that 4.4 percent really affecting you?

It's not about taking away the 4.4%. In the Atlantic article it mentioned that the number of AA students actually graduating from UC Berkley stayed the same after they removed AA. So, what you seem to be fighting for is the right of unprepared AA candidates to flunk out of more prestigious universities vs. graduate from lesser universities.

How do you know they were unprepared? Maybe there were other reasons they left. If you listen to Kavitha Cardoza's reporting on why students of color don't graduate and have bad grades, a lot had to do with navigating their new environments, not understanding their new environments, worrying about home, not feeling a lot of support. There are many many reasons and very few having to do with them being unprepared.

I guess it would require that you get out of you little brain and actually analyze the issue holistically. Why don't you find other sources that dispute this article and then come back with an informed opinion.

[Anonymous]

...and, in addition to that, studies have shown that grades are more indicative of success then test scores.

[Anonymous]

TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VI and Race, Color and National Origin Discrimination

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from
discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title VI states that:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground
of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful what you wish for. The California admissions system has resulted in increased Asian admissions. Not criticizing Asians, it's a fact that has occurred after picking based on scores.

So what?

UC Berkeley and UCLA DO NOT select based on score. They (unlike other UCs) use holistic review for admission process including many factors such as SES, first generation, challenges, single parent, leadership potential, activities, volunteering, personal essays, etc. as well as grades and test scores They are just prohibited from using race as one of those dozen or so factors.

In fact, They de-emphasize SAT scores in order to increase "diversity". That is why their average SAT score is around 2140 even with many Asians. It is not uncommon for Asians to be rejected by UC Berkeley with 2300 or higher SAT scores.

only if they are EXTREME splitters and/or they are applying to EECS.

An asian with 2300 sat's applying to LS @ Cal is not getting rejected.

You are cherrypicking EECS, which is cmu cs/ivy league difficulty to get in regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VI and Race, Color and National Origin Discrimination

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from
discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title VI states that:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground
of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's on paper. How is it actually practiced? Where shall we start, mortgages, housing discrimination? Lots of examples of discrimination. It's not making people follow the law. Redlining was legal until the 70s and is still practiced. Minorities receive subprime loans even when everything is the same including FICO, salary, neighborhood. Why is that?

People say what they want, but there is racism in our society. It doesn't go away just because you say it's gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VI and Race, Color and National Origin Discrimination

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from
discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title VI states that:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground
of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's on paper. How is it actually practiced? Where shall we start, mortgages, housing discrimination? Lots of examples of discrimination. It's not making people follow the law. Redlining was legal until the 70s and is still practiced. Minorities receive subprime loans even when everything is the same including FICO, salary, neighborhood. Why is that?

People say what they want, but there is racism in our society. It doesn't go away just because you say it's gone.

And we can start preventing racism by stopping public institutions and those receiving public funds from practicing racial discrimination . Asians are discriminated in many ways just like AA (and in some cases worse due to lack of political influence) and then Asians are penalized in college admissions even with superior achievements.

AA has the music industry, entertainment industry, media, professional sports, politics etc. in addition to academic fields available but Asians are virtually shut out of those areas due to discrimination except for the academic route and even that route is paved with discrimination and obstacles.

What if we gave Asians racial preference in sports, media, entertainment, music etc. for "diversity" sake? Try to have about 6% Asian representation by giving them boost in hiring. There is always talk of over-representation of Asians in colleges but never a discussion of virtual lack of Asians in the fields mentioned. Asians have no choice but to try to succeed in academic fields since other fields are off limits and Asians are shut out.

When was the last time you saw Asian face on CNN, MSNBC, Fox or other new outlets? When was the last time you saw Asian politician on TV or newspaper? When was the last time you saw Asian actor/singer in the mass media? Don't we want different and diverse perspectives from all Americans or do Asian Americans not count except to make rooms and sacrifice for other politically powerful groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Title VI and Race, Color and National Origin Discrimination

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from
discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title VI states that:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground
of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's on paper. How is it actually practiced? Where shall we start, mortgages, housing discrimination? Lots of examples of discrimination. It's not making people follow the law. Redlining was legal until the 70s and is still practiced. Minorities receive subprime loans even when everything is the same including FICO, salary, neighborhood. Why is that?

People say what they want, but there is racism in our society. It doesn't go away just because you say it's gone.

And we can start preventing racism by stopping public institutions and those receiving public funds from practicing racial discrimination . Asians are discriminated in many ways just like AA (and in some cases worse due to lack of political influence) and then Asians are penalized in college admissions even with superior achievements.

AA has the music industry, entertainment industry, media, professional sports, politics etc. in addition to academic fields available but Asians are virtually shut out of those areas due to discrimination except for the academic route and even that route is paved with discrimination and obstacles.

What if we gave Asians racial preference in sports, media, entertainment, music etc. for "diversity" sake? Try to have about 6% Asian representation by giving them boost in hiring. There is always talk of over-representation of Asians in colleges but never a discussion of virtual lack of Asians in the fields mentioned. Asians have no choice but to try to succeed in academic fields since other fields are off limits and Asians are shut out.

When was the last time you saw Asian face on CNN, MSNBC, Fox or other new outlets? When was the last time you saw Asian politician on TV or newspaper? When was the last time you saw Asian actor/singer in the mass media? Don't we want different and diverse perspectives from all Americans or do Asian Americans not count except to make rooms and sacrifice for other politically powerful groups?

Are AAs preventing Asians from getting anything? Do we control anything? We are not the enemy. There should be Asians on TV. Do AAs own the stations? You are focusing on the wrong target. Instead of taking the TINY bit of influence from AAs, why aren't you complaining to white people. They are making the decisions. Are you afraid? Are we an easier target? The colleges that are limiting Asians aren't limiting them to admit more black students. They are limiting them to admit more white students.

There are very few black people in the media, on the news or in places of power. This is not how you fight for your rights. Instead of trying to deny black and latino people, it would be more powerful to join our fight. You will be more successful. You will continue to go down this path and win nothing. Colleges will still want diverse student bodies and if all all Asians look the same on paper, they still won't get in. College admissions will never be based solely on grades and test scores. That's why many colleges are moving away from using the SAT and ACT. That creates a very boring class. They will still want diversity based on SES, regional, sports, music, language, interests.

What will Asian students do then. Still blame AAs for taking something away from them. Get smarter with your fight and arguments. This is clearly not winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...and, in addition to that, studies have shown that grades are more indicative of success then test scores.

If you're interested in how well test score predict college performance:

http://www.isironline.org/isir-2015-invited-address-paul-sackett-nathan-kuncel/

They have a dataset that show that test scores predict academic performance quite well, and do so regardless of race, SES and gender. The sample size was 1.2 million college students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful what you wish for. The California admissions system has resulted in increased Asian admissions. Not criticizing Asians, it's a fact that has occurred after picking based on scores.

So what?

UC Berkeley and UCLA DO NOT select based on score. They (unlike other UCs) use holistic review for admission process including many factors such as SES, first generation, challenges, single parent, leadership potential, activities, volunteering, personal essays, etc. as well as grades and test scores They are just prohibited from using race as one of those dozen or so factors.

In fact, They de-emphasize SAT scores in order to increase "diversity". That is why their average SAT score is around 2140 even with many Asians. It is not uncommon for Asians to be rejected by UC Berkeley with 2300 or higher SAT scores.

only if they are EXTREME splitters and/or they are applying to EECS.

An asian with 2300 sat's applying to LS @ Cal is not getting rejected.

You are cherrypicking EECS, which is cmu cs/ivy league difficulty to get in regardless.

It is not just EECS major but the test score is deemphasized for all applicants. Asians with 2300 SAT do get rejected to L&S and other colleges not just EECS. You also see applicants with SAT scores of 1800 get admitted if they are deemed worthy using other subjective factors. You can go on College Confidential and see for your self.

The % of Asians will be even higher and the average SAT will be substantially higher than 2140 without this "workaround" admission process at UC Berkeley including deemphasizing SAT of scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...and, in addition to that, studies have shown that grades are more indicative of success then test scores.

If you're interested in how well test score predict college performance:

http://www.isironline.org/isir-2015-invited-address-paul-sackett-nathan-kuncel/

They have a dataset that show that test scores predict academic performance quite well, and do so regardless of race, SES and gender. The sample size was 1.2 million college students.

This has been refuted. High SAT scores are correlated to high SES. When I get a moment, I will post. Especially, when it comes to LSAT and bar passage rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...and, in addition to that, studies have shown that grades are more indicative of success then test scores.

If you're interested in how well test score predict college performance:

http://www.isironline.org/isir-2015-invited-address-paul-sackett-nathan-kuncel/

They have a dataset that show that test scores predict academic performance quite well, and do so regardless of race, SES and gender. The sample size was 1.2 million college students.

This has been refuted. High SAT scores are correlated to high SES. When I get a moment, I will post. Especially, when it comes to LSAT and bar passage rates.

No, this hasn't been refuted. It's a brand new study with 1.2 million participants (college board data). Most of other studies were very small sample size or were manipulated to get the results the author wanted. Watch the presentation, it's very illuminating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...and, in addition to that, studies have shown that grades are more indicative of success then test scores.

If you're interested in how well test score predict college performance:

http://www.isironline.org/isir-2015-invited-address-paul-sackett-nathan-kuncel/

They have a dataset that show that test scores predict academic performance quite well, and do so regardless of race, SES and gender. The sample size was 1.2 million college students.

This has been refuted. High SAT scores are correlated to high SES. When I get a moment, I will post. Especially, when it comes to LSAT and bar passage rates.

No, this hasn't been refuted. It's a brand new study with 1.2 million participants (college board data). Most of other studies were very small sample size or were manipulated to get the results the author wanted. Watch the presentation, it's very illuminating.

What will it prove? That only kids with high SAT scores should go to college? That only a subset of our population deserve to be there? That colleges should only use test scores for admission? That our society is better if we only employ people who scored well? Please - illuminate me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...and, in addition to that, studies have shown that grades are more indicative of success then test scores.

success using what measure. my impression was that grades are more indicative of good grades in college than test scores. Success has a number of measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...and, in addition to that, studies have shown that grades are more indicative of success then test scores.

If you're interested in how well test score predict college performance:

http://www.isironline.org/isir-2015-invited-address-paul-sackett-nathan-kuncel/

They have a dataset that show that test scores predict academic performance quite well, and do so regardless of race, SES and gender. The sample size was 1.2 million college students.

This has been refuted. High SAT scores are correlated to high SES. When I get a moment, I will post. Especially, when it comes to LSAT and bar passage rates.

No, this hasn't been refuted. It's a brand new study with 1.2 million participants (college board data). Most of other studies were very small sample size or were manipulated to get the results the author wanted. Watch the presentation, it's very illuminating.

What will it prove? That only kids with high SAT scores should go to college? That only a subset of our population deserve to be there? That colleges should only use test scores for admission? That our society is better if we only employ people who scored well? Please - illuminate me.

Yes? Do you think everybody is college material?