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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

Yep. I work for a tech start up and many applicants can’t get past our CEO. He likes extroverts. Fair or not, it’s why he likes and he finds them.

Your CEO actually talked to the applicants like the Harvard interviewers, but the Harvard AOs didn't even see the face of applicants

Alumni interviewers are not professional college admission officers.

Yea they are professionals who can judge likability kindness courage of people without even seeing people

[Anonymous]

LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

Right? Imagine stereotyping lots of black people as "not likeable" without ever meeting them, or Jews.. oh wait, Harvard did do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

Yep. I work for a tech start up and many applicants can’t get past our CEO. He likes extroverts. Fair or not, it’s why he likes and he finds them.

Your CEO actually talked to the applicants like the Harvard interviewers, but the Harvard AOs didn't even see the face of applicants

Alumni interviewers are not professional college admission officers.

And these " professional college admission officers" have never even met the candidates that marked as "low" on the likeability score.

Unlike interviewers, AOs have access to the application files.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

What was the world get along before SAT/ACT scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

[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: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."

Yep. I work for a tech start up and many applicants can’t get past our CEO. He likes extroverts. Fair or not, it’s why he likes and he finds them.

Your CEO actually talked to the applicants like the Harvard interviewers, but the Harvard AOs didn't even see the face of applicants

Alumni interviewers are not professional college admission officers.

And these " professional college admission officers" have never even met the candidates that marked as "low" on the likeability score.

Unlike interviewers, AOs have access to the application files.

files like teacher recommendation and such which wasn't negative at all.
It's only AOs imagination that gave applicatns low sccore.

Justice will be served by the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

SAT is racist
LMFAO are these people serious?

[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: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.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

SAT is racist
LMFAO are these people serious?

Ha. Your ignorance is showing. Google is your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

[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.

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.

Definitely a troll.

[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: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.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

SAT is racist
LMFAO are these people serious?

Ha. Your ignorance is showing. Google is your friend.

Math is super racist. How could PP not be aware?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's called range restriction. At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict. Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive. The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.


The UC system is test blind.

It's test blind now. The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together. People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.

Not quite.

The state was sued by black and Latino groups claiming that the SAT was racist and barrier to opportunity enter the UC schools. The UC decided to settle rather than lose.

The SAT/ ACT is a fake meritocracy sham.

Test optional and test blind options will continue to grow.

Sorry for Blacks

Berkeley

Asian 35%

White 21%

Hispanic 20%

International 13%

Two or more races 6%

Unknown 3%

Black 2%

American Indian 0%

Pacific Islander 0%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMFAO WTF PEOPLE

Claiming that Math and English Tests are biased.

Also claiming that scoring likability, courage, without even looking at the person is legit, and Harvard is right.

DISGUSTING. NO SHAME.

It’s comical but when people do poorly on an objective test they grasp for an explanation other than their own shortcomings. We live in a victimhood culture where nobody wants to take personal accountability for anything. It’s the fall of Rome.

Yep. A victimhood culture where one dimensional pointy Asians are being used as pawns by a conservative white group claiming that Asians are being rated as - wait for it - one dimensional and pointy.

Colleges want more than bookworms.

See ALDC.