Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

It's actually test scores and every other observable metric. What you have to rest on is that somehow the things you can't observe are significantly better for URMs. That seems unlikely.

Actually, you are wrong. I think if you take a child in a poor school district that score within the Ivy Index they probably have a higher capacity to learn than somebody that has a good school system and test prep with a 300 pt higher score. Like seriously if you are really that smart and have all the opportunities in the world and you ONLY score 300 more, that points to being not as adequate.

[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:

If this is waht some people look at Math and English, we got a problem.

You have not spent enough time on dcum. Read some of the private school threads about how much better, stronger, more rigorous, more advantageous, is the education available to private school kids. The entire argument is that kids should go because they will be by far best prepared to " climb the tree".

My Asian kids went to overcrowded public schools of course because I don't have money to send them to private schools.
I believe tests are still the most objective and fair measure.
The world is never going to be perfectly fair and leveled. Welcome to the real world.

Of course not. But if the fish makes it to the first branch, that is as or more impressive than the monkey getting all the way to the top

Impressive doesn't mean qualified.
Help the fish equiped to compete is the solution.

Going to an excellent college is helping the fish to compete.

shoving in underqualifed fish on top of the tree is not the solution.

That’s the fallacy. This fish is plenty qualified. Nobody is choosing anyone unqualified.

Sorry monkey is more qualified. Fish is still less qualified although looking impressive.

Let's help fish!

Can the monkey even swim? Maybe tree climbing is not all that.

Fish can give up the 'tree' and go to what it's best at.

The monkey would totally struggle in the fish's world. These decisions are subjective. The colleges value having both monkeys and fish. I suspect they will continue to value that and try to find a way to legally create that.

Yes please do that legally and fairly

It started with eliminating test scores and it will continue as they adjust the selection criteria. They want a diverse class.

Schools keep going backward will get less and less competitive.

Schools found out that SAT scores actually gave them a bad outcome which is why artists and athletes were added.

[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:

If this is waht some people look at Math and English, we got a problem.

You have not spent enough time on dcum. Read some of the private school threads about how much better, stronger, more rigorous, more advantageous, is the education available to private school kids. The entire argument is that kids should go because they will be by far best prepared to " climb the tree".

My Asian kids went to overcrowded public schools of course because I don't have money to send them to private schools.
I believe tests are still the most objective and fair measure.
The world is never going to be perfectly fair and leveled. Welcome to the real world.

Of course not. But if the fish makes it to the first branch, that is as or more impressive than the monkey getting all the way to the top

Impressive doesn't mean qualified.
Help the fish equiped to compete is the solution.

Going to an excellent college is helping the fish to compete.

shoving in underqualifed fish on top of the tree is not the solution.

That’s the fallacy. This fish is plenty qualified. Nobody is choosing anyone unqualified.

Sorry monkey is more qualified. Fish is still less qualified although looking impressive.

Let's help fish!

Can the monkey even swim? Maybe tree climbing is not all that.

Fish can give up the 'tree' and go to what it's best at.

The monkey would totally struggle in the fish's world. These decisions are subjective. The colleges value having both monkeys and fish. I suspect they will continue to value that and try to find a way to legally create that.

Yes please do that legally and fairly

It started with eliminating test scores and it will continue as they adjust the selection criteria. They want a diverse class.

Schools keep going backward will get less and less competitive.

Schools found out that SAT scores actually gave them a bad outcome which is why artists and athletes were added.

That implies that schools are not valuing SAT scores more than athletes and legacies and donors.

In other words, the schools make the rules. You decide if you want to be part of their mission - by either applying to the school or not.

Life goes on either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

Clearly one group isn't out-performing on all metrics if they can't get decent personality scores.

Believe it or not when you go in for that job interview, you are going to be assigned a "personality score" that will determine whether you get that job, regardless of your "objective" skills and qualifications. Managers want people with skills and that "holistic" nebulous quality you call "likeability."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

The SAT is way too easy to serve as a measure for readiness at Caltech (and MIT or any other elite math, physics, or engineering program).
It’s a classic example of using a test with an enormous ceiling effect to predict performance, and then finding that it doesn’t predict performance for kids at the top end.

If they used the AMC12, the test would work just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

It's actually test scores and every other observable metric. What you have to rest on is that somehow the things you can't observe are significantly better for URMs. That seems unlikely.

Actually, you are wrong. I think if you take a child in a poor school district that score within the Ivy Index they probably have a higher capacity to learn than somebody that has a good school system and test prep with a 300 pt higher score. Like seriously if you are really that smart and have all the opportunities in the world and you ONLY score 300 more, that points to being not as adequate.

For the 100 millionth time, 'every other observable metric' is not equal to SAT/ACT score

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

I hope you are a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

It's actually test scores and every other observable metric. What you have to rest on is that somehow the things you can't observe are significantly better for URMs. That seems unlikely.

Actually, you are wrong. I think if you take a child in a poor school district that score within the Ivy Index they probably have a higher capacity to learn than somebody that has a good school system and test prep with a 300 pt higher score. Like seriously if you are really that smart and have all the opportunities in the world and you ONLY score 300 more, that points to being not as adequate.

For the 100 millionth time, 'every other observable metric' is not equal to SAT/ACT score

Sadly for you, Harvard says otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

That’s an interesting stance.

- Would you agree that prior to entering college, overall (yes that’s a generalization) due to things like white flight, and the deliberate way that public schools are funded: more predominantly white schools are better funded and better able to offer higher quality educational experiences than mostly minority schools?

-Do you get that at least through the 70s, members of minority groups were systematically discredited against legally and explicitly due to race?

-Do you get that private and public institutions have historically limited access to these institutions due to race?

— If you do get those things, I’d like some understanding of what you feel has changed such that suddenly “throwing in race” has become problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

Welcome to the thread, but seat down.
For the millionth time, it's not just 'test scores'
You are completely off.

And for the millionth time, there is no data suggesting that all of the Asian students submitted were the top of all the Asians nor any other group. So the 13% or whatever of Asian that are admitted are not the best of their own subgroup of students submitting applications. Even with top scores across everything, including personality scores, it is not a guaranteed seat.

The discovery in the Harvard case actually did indicate this - Harvard’s own internal analysis showed that if it had based admissions on academic and extracurricular records (meaning more than test scores), there would be a substantially higher number (likely close to twice as many with an outright majority) of Asian students on campus.

If people want diversity to be a goal, which is something that I agree with, then that’s absolutely great.

However, people getting blinded that they’re employing a discriminatory process against a minority group in order to achieve that goal is an inherent problem.

But thats not all they use for admissions. You are not guaranteed a seat no matter how great your grades, ECs, leadership, personality are. There are more applicants than seats. What will be happen next? There are 3000 seats for freshman and there are 4000 Asian applicants who are top rated on all the above and they pick 3000. What about the other 1000? Will it be because 50% of the 100 are Chinese? Or statistically the Chinese Asian Americans are more likely to gain admittance?

Like wtf.

If Harvard is your only chance of success or benchmark for success, its not Harvard that is the problem.

It's not about "guaranteed" seats, but more that one group is being discriminated against. This group has to outperform on every metric and are given low personality scores without any face to face interactions. Imagine if that group was African Americans. And in fact, this is what those schools did to Jews when Jews started to outperform WASPS in every measurable metric. So, those schools threw in subjective, "soft" metrics like letters of recs and extra curriculars, and "likeability" scores.

Again, imagine if that was happening today to African Americans by schools.

I hope you are a troll.

Only Asians are experiencing racism in higher education. They are now the most victimized group in America. Step aside African Americans, your ship has sailed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

Also CalTech, Fall Enrollment 2022-23
https://www.registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

CalTech is actually one school doing it fairly right without test scores and it can do that because it has extremely small number of elite groups of students. 
Students have national level and international level awards and nobody would question their qualifications in general.

--- American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
--- Asian American 44%
--- Black or African American 7%
--- Hispanic/Latinx 22%
--- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2%
--- White 45%
--- International 9%
--- Race/ethnicity unknown 1%

If done relatively right, it would at least look like this I guess if you agree with CalTech way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

It's actually test scores and every other observable metric. What you have to rest on is that somehow the things you can't observe are significantly better for URMs. That seems unlikely.

Actually, you are wrong. I think if you take a child in a poor school district that score within the Ivy Index they probably have a higher capacity to learn than somebody that has a good school system and test prep with a 300 pt higher score. Like seriously if you are really that smart and have all the opportunities in the world and you ONLY score 300 more, that points to being not as adequate.

For the 100 millionth time, 'every other observable metric' is not equal to SAT/ACT score

Sadly for you, Harvard says otherwise.

Sorry for you, Supreme Court will say otherwise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

It's actually test scores and every other observable metric. What you have to rest on is that somehow the things you can't observe are significantly better for URMs. That seems unlikely.

Actually, you are wrong. I think if you take a child in a poor school district that score within the Ivy Index they probably have a higher capacity to learn than somebody that has a good school system and test prep with a 300 pt higher score. Like seriously if you are really that smart and have all the opportunities in the world and you ONLY score 300 more, that points to being not as adequate.

For the 100 millionth time, 'every other observable metric' is not equal to SAT/ACT score

Sadly for you, Harvard says otherwise.

Sorry for you, Supreme Court will say otherwise

Sorry for you but Harvard will just gerrymander its standards to achieve the same results. No soup for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:


"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.

Also CalTech, Fall Enrollment 2022-23
https://www.registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

CalTech is actually one school doing it fairly right without test scores and it can do that because it has extremely small number of elite groups of students. 
Students have national level and international level awards and nobody would question their qualifications in general.

--- American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
--- Asian American 44%
--- Black or African American 7%
--- Hispanic/Latinx 22%
--- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2%
--- White 45%
--- International 9%
--- Race/ethnicity unknown 1%

If done relatively right, it would at least look like this I guess if you agree with CalTech way.

Actually, having a URM percentage at ~30% isn't bad for a niche elite tech college like Caltech. Those numbers will improve under test optional.

While not a public school, the black student population is in line or better than the state of California demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores. This isn't China! If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country.

It's actually test scores and every other observable metric. What you have to rest on is that somehow the things you can't observe are significantly better for URMs. That seems unlikely.

Actually, you are wrong. I think if you take a child in a poor school district that score within the Ivy Index they probably have a higher capacity to learn than somebody that has a good school system and test prep with a 300 pt higher score. Like seriously if you are really that smart and have all the opportunities in the world and you ONLY score 300 more, that points to being not as adequate.

For the 100 millionth time, 'every other observable metric' is not equal to SAT/ACT score

Sadly for you, Harvard says otherwise.

Sorry for you, Supreme Court will say otherwise

Sorry for you but Harvard will just gerrymander its standards to achieve the same results. No soup for you!

Whatever they do, better not break the laws.