The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

Who said they are ok? No dumb affirmative action students, no dumb legacies, and no dumb jock meatheads.

I don’t think anyone in those groups at Harvard is “dumb.” And way to get in a very clever insult to people who are talented in athletics.

And to the PP who stated, “ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action,” I affirmative action doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The point isn’t that athletics don’t meet some minimum qualification for admission, it’s that they’re admitted ahead of students that would have beaten them had the criteria been academics alone. So yes it’s a form of affirmative action or preference or however you want to classify it. race preference admits also meet the minimum threshold so if you’re saying that athletic recruits are ok because they aren’t “dumb” then everyone who gets in fits that description.

And to the other poster, you could pick any random twenty students at Harvard and they’ll have a 3.5 GPA. That’s not impressive

But those other students didn’t have an athletic talent that the school was interested in. The school can’t accept students only on their academic merits and expect to have enough higher level athletes to fill Division I teams or enough musicians to fill the orchestra and band or enough singers for the choir or actors for the theatre groups, etc., etc.

Many, if not most, US colleges are not about academics alone. Students don’t see college only as a place where they go to class and then go home and study. They see college as a time of learning and experiencing many different subjects and opportunities, many of which include participating in a variety of activities with other students. It is an error to believe that colleges are looking for students solely for their academic achievements- they want kids who have achieved in a number of different areas in order that they can continue to grow a community with a variety of offerings for all the students.

The basic philosophy of many US colleges is that the college years are about academics and so much more. To have that “so much more” available, they have to put together a class of students with a wide range of talents and accomplishments. Applicants need to have high level academics, of course, but some will need to have academics combined with athletic or musical or literary accomplishments. That’s how you put together a vibrant community with much to offer for all the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

Who said they are ok? No dumb affirmative action students, no dumb legacies, and no dumb jock meatheads.

I don’t think anyone in those groups at Harvard is “dumb.” And way to get in a very clever insult to people who are talented in athletics.

And to the PP who stated, “ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action,” I affirmative action doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The point isn’t that athletics don’t meet some minimum qualification for admission, it’s that they’re admitted ahead of students that would have beaten them had the criteria been academics alone. So yes it’s a form of affirmative action or preference or however you want to classify it. race preference admits also meet the minimum threshold so if you’re saying that athletic recruits are ok because they aren’t “dumb” then everyone who gets in fits that description.

And to the other poster, you could pick any random twenty students at Harvard and they’ll have a 3.5 GPA. That’s not impressive

But those other students didn’t have an athletic talent that the school was interested in. The school can’t accept students only on their academic merits and expect to have enough higher level athletes to fill Division I teams or enough musicians to fill the orchestra and band or enough singers for the choir or actors for the theatre groups, etc., etc.

Many, if not most, US colleges are not about academics alone. Students don’t see college only as a place where they go to class and then go home and study. They see college as a time of learning and experiencing many different subjects and opportunities, many of which include participating in a variety of activities with other students. It is an error to believe that colleges are looking for students solely for their academic achievements- they want kids who have achieved in a number of different areas in order that they can continue to grow a community with a variety of offerings for all the students.

The basic philosophy of many US colleges is that the college years are about academics and so much more. To have that “so much more” available, they have to put together a class of students with a wide range of talents and accomplishments. Applicants need to have high level academics, of course, but some will need to have academics combined with athletic or musical or literary accomplishments. That’s how you put together a vibrant community with much to offer for all the students.

That’s all good and fine but you can’t support athletic preferences for this reason and be against any other preference. It’s all or none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

Who said they are ok? No dumb affirmative action students, no dumb legacies, and no dumb j

ock meatheads.

We get it PP Dash you pick Josh and crew and Madison in lax and they’re reaping the benefits. Good job mama!!!

I don’t think anyone in those groups at Harvard is “dumb.” And way to get in a very clever insult to people who are talented in athletics.

And to the PP who stated, “ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action,” I affirmative action doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The point isn’t that athletics don’t meet some minimum qualification for admission, it’s that they’re admitted ahead of students that would have beaten them had the criteria been academics alone. So yes it’s a form of affirmative action or preference or however you want to classify it. race preference admits also meet the minimum threshold so if you’re saying that athletic recruits are ok because they aren’t “dumb” then everyone who gets in fits that description.

And to the other poster, you could pick any random twenty students at Harvard and they’ll have a 3.5 GPA. That’s not impressive

But those other students didn’t have an athletic talent that the school was interested in. The school can’t accept students only on their academic merits and expect to have enough higher level athletes to fill Division I teams or enough musicians to fill the orchestra and band or enough singers for the choir or actors for the theatre groups, etc., etc.

Many, if not most, US colleges are not about academics alone. Students don’t see college only as a place where they go to class and then go home and study. They see college as a time of learning and experiencing many different subjects and opportunities, many of which include participating in a variety of activities with other students. It is an error to believe that colleges are looking for students solely for their academic achievements- they want kids who have achieved in a number of different areas in order that they can continue to grow a community with a variety of offerings for all the students.

The basic philosophy of many US colleges is that the college years are about academics and so much more. To have that “so much more” available, they have to put together a class of students with a wide range of talents and accomplishments. Applicants need to have high level academics, of course, but some will need to have academics combined with athletic or musical or literary accomplishments. That’s how you put together a vibrant community with much to offer for all the students.

[Anonymous]

We get it PP Dash you pick Josh and crew and Madison in lax and they’re reaping the benefits. Good job mama!!!

[Anonymous]

^Excuse my typos from posting for my phone —but everybody gets it mama bear!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

Who said they are ok? No dumb affirmative action students, no dumb legacies, and no dumb jock meatheads.

I don’t think anyone in those groups at Harvard is “dumb.” And way to get in a very clever insult to people who are talented in athletics.

And to the PP who stated, “ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action,” I affirmative action doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The point isn’t that athletics don’t meet some minimum qualification for admission, it’s that they’re admitted ahead of students that would have beaten them had the criteria been academics alone. So yes it’s a form of affirmative action or preference or however you want to classify it. race preference admits also meet the minimum threshold so if you’re saying that athletic recruits are ok because they aren’t “dumb” then everyone who gets in fits that description.

And to the other poster, you could pick any random twenty students at Harvard and they’ll have a 3.5 GPA. That’s not impressive

But those other students didn’t have an athletic talent that the school was interested in. The school can’t accept students only on their academic merits and expect to have enough higher level athletes to fill Division I teams or enough musicians to fill the orchestra and band or enough singers for the choir or actors for the theatre groups, etc., etc.

Many, if not most, US colleges are not about academics alone. Students don’t see college only as a place where they go to class and then go home and study. They see college as a time of learning and experiencing many different subjects and opportunities, many of which include participating in a variety of activities with other students. It is an error to believe that colleges are looking for students solely for their academic achievements- they want kids who have achieved in a number of different areas in order that they can continue to grow a community with a variety of offerings for all the students.

The basic philosophy of many US colleges is that the college years are about academics and so much more. To have that “so much more” available, they have to put together a class of students with a wide range of talents and accomplishments. Applicants need to have high level academics, of course, but some will need to have academics combined with athletic or musical or literary accomplishments. That’s how you put together a vibrant community with much to offer for all the students.

That’s all good and fine but you can’t support athletic preferences for this reason and be against any other preference. It’s all or none.

Athletics isn’t a “preference,” it is a skill that an accomplished athlete brings to the table. Picture an adcom looking at papers with a number of columns for a group of applicants. They all have grades and test scores higher than a certain bar, as noted in the first column. Following the first column, labeled “academics,” are columns headed: “sports,” “music,” “visual art,” “theatre,” “community involvement,” etc. Everyone in this group are well above the academic requirements for the school. But some of them achieved highly in one or the other of the following categories.

So who is likely to get the nod: the applicants who have checked off the first column, but none of the others, or the ones who have fulfilled the academic requirements but also have great talent in some other area? If you want kids who can achieve in academics and also achieve highly in other areas at the same time, which kid is going do more for the school community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

Who said they are ok? No dumb affirmative action students, no dumb legacies, and no dumb jock meatheads.

I don’t think anyone in those groups at Harvard is “dumb.” And way to get in a very clever insult to people who are talented in athletics.

And to the PP who stated, “ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action,” I affirmative action doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The point isn’t that athletics don’t meet some minimum qualification for admission, it’s that they’re admitted ahead of students that would have beaten them had the criteria been academics alone. So yes it’s a form of affirmative action or preference or however you want to classify it. race preference admits also meet the minimum threshold so if you’re saying that athletic recruits are ok because they aren’t “dumb” then everyone who gets in fits that description.

And to the other poster, you could pick any random twenty students at Harvard and they’ll have a 3.5 GPA. That’s not impressive

But those other students didn’t have an athletic talent that the school was interested in. The school can’t accept students only on their academic merits and expect to have enough higher level athletes to fill Division I teams or enough musicians to fill the orchestra and band or enough singers for the choir or actors for the theatre groups, etc., etc.

Many, if not most, US colleges are not about academics alone. Students don’t see college only as a place where they go to class and then go home and study. They see college as a time of learning and experiencing many different subjects and opportunities, many of which include participating in a variety of activities with other students. It is an error to believe that colleges are looking for students solely for their academic achievements- they want kids who have achieved in a number of different areas in order that they can continue to grow a community with a variety of offerings for all the students.

The basic philosophy of many US colleges is that the college years are about academics and so much more. To have that “so much more” available, they have to put together a class of students with a wide range of talents and accomplishments. Applicants need to have high level academics, of course, but some will need to have academics combined with athletic or musical or literary accomplishments. That’s how you put together a vibrant community with much to offer for all the students.

That’s all good and fine but you can’t support athletic preferences for this reason and be against any other preference. It’s all or none.

Athletics isn’t a “preference,” it is a skill that an accomplished athlete brings to the table. Picture an adcom looking at papers with a number of columns for a group of applicants. They all have grades and test scores higher than a certain bar, as noted in the first column. Following the first column, labeled “academics,” are columns headed: “sports,” “music,” “visual art,” “theatre,” “community involvement,” etc. Everyone in this group are well above the academic requirements for the school. But some of them achieved highly in one or the other of the following categories.

So who is likely to get the nod: the applicants who have checked off the first column, but none of the others, or the ones who have fulfilled the academic requirements but also have great talent in some other area? If you want kids who can achieve in academics and also achieve highly in other areas at the same time, which kid is going do more for the school community?

If it helps you sleep at night but it’s literally referred to as a preference and the numbers show athletes are far less qualified than other applicants. They get “preferred” over more qualified applicants because of their status as athletes. Remember also that we are taking about Ivy League athletics which for the most part aren’t exactly high quality. It’s not a matter of checking the first column and being done with it. These are cases where some applicants have a gigantic check in the first column and they’re passed over for someone with a far smaller check.

If you think a school can think about things like community then you should be for ALL preferences the school chooses to use to form its community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That’s all good and fine but you can’t support athletic preferences for this reason and be against any other preference. It’s all or none.

Who's the little fascist now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That’s all good and fine but you can’t support athletic preferences for this reason and be against any other preference. It’s all or none.

Who's the little fascist now?

Nothing fascist about it. You simply can’t distinguish between preferring one irrelevant trait over another. You could but then you aren’t being intellectually honest. I mean you probably don’t have a problem with that because all you are concerned with is preserving your own perceived advantage but it’s oure hypocrisy to say that valuing athletic ability is an acceptable criteria for forming the college community but then saying that because it’s the only thing YOU value that the college has to stop using all others. At the end of the day either the college has the right to form it’s community or it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Have people not figured out that holistic admissions is a big scam? It allows universities to accept less qualified Black and Hispanic students. White and Asian students are the ones who end up suffering. It's basically a racist quote. The same thing happened to Jews several decades ago, and it was called racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama went to Columbia and Harvard on racial preference. His grades at Punahou and Occidental were merely average. He would never have gotten in to Columbia or Harvard had he not classified himself as African American.

And, boy, what a mistake it was to admit him despite his merely average grades. How wrong they were to think he had other merits as a potential student. What a fraud, what a travesty!.He completely wasted that educational opportunity, proved himself to be unworthy of admission, and has suffered horribly from the stigma of affirmative action. /s

Burn.

[Anonymous]

Why obsess over athletes? What about tuba players?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why obsess over athletes? What about tuba players?

Yes, I don't get that. Based on all the studies I have seen, athletes go on to do very well as a group after elite college, on average. I don't really understand the insistence that they are somehow lesser contributors to the college or do worse. My understanding is that as a group, they do better in life than their Ivy League peers.

I am pro-affirmative action, FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action hurts blacks and Hispanics. It comes with poor reputation that follows people.

Then ALDC preferences hurt those subgroups and should be ended as well.

My gut feeling is that you'd think poorly of blacks and Hispanics with or without affirmative action . . .

No. And no. The scandals in the news shows people’s attitude towards athlete “scholars” is changing. The more we know, the lower the opinion of these people not the least of which are the admissions people. Hispanics and blacks in CalTech and MIT are highly regarded. They are in because of merit. Same with oxford and Cambridge, both of which do not allow affirmative action.

So to protect the reputation of blacks and Hispanics we should end race preference, but unqualified white applicants who get in under the ALDC preferences are ok? ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action, and those preferences, by the way, don't exist at CallTech, MIT, Oxford or Cambridge.

Who said they are ok? No dumb affirmative action students, no dumb legacies, and no dumb jock meatheads.

I don’t think anyone in those groups at Harvard is “dumb.” And way to get in a very clever insult to people who are talented in athletics.

And to the PP who stated, “ALDC preferences are a form of affirmative action,” I affirmative action doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The point isn’t that athletics don’t meet some minimum qualification for admission, it’s that they’re admitted ahead of students that would have beaten them had the criteria been academics alone. So yes it’s a form of affirmative action or preference or however you want to classify it. race preference admits also meet the minimum threshold so if you’re saying that athletic recruits are ok because they aren’t “dumb” then everyone who gets in fits that description.

And to the other poster, you could pick any random twenty students at Harvard and they’ll have a 3.5 GPA. That’s not impressive

But those other students didn’t have an athletic talent that the school was interested in. The school can’t accept students only on their academic merits and expect to have enough higher level athletes to fill Division I teams or enough musicians to fill the orchestra and band or enough singers for the choir or actors for the theatre groups, etc., etc.

Many, if not most, US colleges are not about academics alone. Students don’t see college only as a place where they go to class and then go home and study. They see college as a time of learning and experiencing many different subjects and opportunities, many of which include participating in a variety of activities with other students. It is an error to believe that colleges are looking for students solely for their academic achievements- they want kids who have achieved in a number of different areas in order that they can continue to grow a community with a variety of offerings for all the students.

The basic philosophy of many US colleges is that the college years are about academics and so much more. To have that “so much more” available, they have to put together a class of students with a wide range of talents and accomplishments. Applicants need to have high level academics, of course, but some will need to have academics combined with athletic or musical or literary accomplishments. That’s how you put together a vibrant community with much to offer for all the students.

That’s all good and fine but you can’t support athletic preferences for this reason and be against any other preference. It’s all or none.

Athletics isn’t a “preference,” it is a skill that an accomplished athlete brings to the table. Picture an adcom looking at papers with a number of columns for a group of applicants. They all have grades and test scores higher than a certain bar, as noted in the first column. Following the first column, labeled “academics,” are columns headed: “sports,” “music,” “visual art,” “theatre,” “community involvement,” etc. Everyone in this group are well above the academic requirements for the school. But some of them achieved highly in one or the other of the following categories.

So who is likely to get the nod: the applicants who have checked off the first column, but none of the others, or the ones who have fulfilled the academic requirements but also have great talent in some other area? If you want kids who can achieve in academics and also achieve highly in other areas at the same time, which kid is going do more for the school community?

If it helps you sleep at night but it’s literally referred to as a preference and the numbers show athletes are far less qualified than other applicants. They get “preferred” over more qualified applicants because of their status as athletes. Remember also that we are taking about Ivy League athletics which for the most part aren’t exactly high quality. It’s not a matter of checking the first column and being done with it. These are cases where some applicants have a gigantic check in the first column and they’re passed over for someone with a far smaller check.

If you think a school can think about things like community then you should be for ALL preferences the school chooses to use to form its community.

Athletes, musicians, artists, actors- many students with outstanding talents get “preferences” in admissions because schools want kids who are outstanding in academics AND another category that is valued in the college community. College communities do not consist of students who are only accomplished in academics, but also students who are accomplished in academics and another field.

A student who is accomplished in more than one area has more to offer to the college community than one who has achieved highly only in academics but no other area. That’s why students with outstanding talents in addition to high achievement in academics may be accepted over a student with high achievement in academics but no outstanding achievement in any other field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama went to Columbia and Harvard on racial preference. His grades at Punahou and Occidental were merely average. He would never have gotten in to Columbia or Harvard had he not classified himself as African American.

And, boy, what a mistake it was to admit him despite his merely average grades. How wrong they were to think he had other merits as a potential student. What a fraud, what a travesty!.He completely wasted that educational opportunity, proved himself to be unworthy of admission, and has suffered horribly from the stigma of affirmative action. /s

Burn.

And the whole country and the world is now suffering as a result. For every action, there is a reaction. Obama (caused)====> Donald Trump