Accreditors are considering dropping diversity requirements

[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:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism). First-gen / low-income students are given aid based on their financial status, not race.

Sorry, but the color of your skin should not dictate the amount of aid or preference you get.

Thank you for not addressing my comment. There are currently many issues related to financial aid hurting the poor right now as we speak, particularly for professional school. But yeah, advocate for the poor while doing nothing but sitting on your ass and complaining about black people.

Wow, the chip on your shoulder must be visible from space - your victim complex certainly is.

I said nothing at all about black people - OTC, it’s YOU who is absolutely fixated on the color of people’s skin. You know what that’s called? Racism.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism).

Favoritism of who? Who's receiving all this favoritism? What group could you possibly be talking about? Myanmar-Americans? White-Descendants-of-Italians? The Iroquois? You totally didn't skirt around saying what you really meant by just saying race, right

You are utterly unhinged. I truly have no idea what you’re ranting about, and it’s pretty clear you don’t either.

Classic dcum. Suddenly nothing makes sense when it’s most convenient

No, you are flat-out making no sense. Ranting about “Myanmar-Americans,” etc?

Tell us: why do you think anyone should get race-based preferences? We’ll wait.

What race were you talking about getting preferences? This is why I don’t believe you’re confused. You know exactly what you said and now want to act like I’ve said something completely out of left field.

I asked you a question first. Why do you think ANYONE should get race-based preferences - black, white, Latino, Asian, whatever? But of course, you won't answer that and instead, try and obfuscate. It's ok, we all see you.

Because no students (including white students) want to study in an environment that is overwhelmingly white or monoracial. Students (the consumers of the college product) WANT more racial/ethnic diversity. A college that can attract diverse student body is able to attract more students to matriculate there. They are in the sales business.

This is actually a pretty powerful argument FOR diversity in college. It's what most students want! Most students don't want to attend a monoracial or single gender college experience. Some do and go to all-women or HBCUs and that's great, but most want a college exp that is co-ed (and not 80-20 women-men) and racially diverse.

I don't know how sincere this desire for "diversity" is because we've seen that once kids get to college, they tend to not have overly diverse groups of friends. Or rather to be more to the point, there is a limit to the diversity. For all practical purposes when diversity is mentioned, what is really meant is having the right quota of black students, everything else is really not a question or issue. While there is always racial self-segregation among most races to a degree, there is a much bigger racial intermingling and multi-racial friendships among certain racial groups that is effortless for many kids these days. So it's a topic that many dutifully tick the "right" box but in real life it doesn't play out that way.

I believe it's been documented that by removing racial preferences in admissions, the biggest beneficiary are Asian Americans and I guess this also includes South Asians. Frankly. I think this has to be the way forward even if it means Harvard ends up being 80% Asian heritage (and my response to that is so what, who cares?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

Having merit based process and taking away racist considerations is not adopting the Chinese system. And nobody cares what you want or don’t want. You can’t stop it.

? give me a step by step as to how this leads us to a "merit based process." What does merit even look like for you? No top school is choosing solely by top SAT and gpa.

Do exactly what you are doing now but identify applicants by social security number rather than name, race, sex, etc.

Back test the results to see if there are statistically significant preferences in the admissions process that are showing up along racial lines.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hope that we aren’t supporting the idea of being fine with schools discriminating just because the far right mod of to blame everything on DEI. It’s concerning how quickly everyone is forcing the pendulum in the exact opposite direction. People need to accept a bit of balance.

Agreed. There's research to support the better outcomes for all students who learn in diverse peer groups (and for businesses that hire diverse teams to do problem solving) so this is not really a result that should be cheered on without nuance.

I do appreciate that some policies were executed with a too heavy hand but opponents of any diversity goals or programs should realize their non-diverse students also do benefit from going to school with non-homogeneous students. My DS has said he would not want to attend a college or school that's mostly was all white or all male (which is what he himself is). He wants diversity for himself and supports all reasonable diversity programs aimed at increasing it.

Social science research results can be easily manipulated depending on research design, data used etc. people are so stupid to fall for that.

Do you have reason to believe that study was fabricated? Otherwise you’re just writing a general limitation to research, which makes this a useless comment.

DP

What study?

There are certainly studies about diversity and most of them show no real academic benefit except in disciplines where race is actually a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

Really hope all this DEI crap goes away and we get back to merit/performance. I can’t read the article above.

LOL. Pining for the return of uniformity, inequity, and exclusion of qualified folks who don’t fit the mold.

DP

The opposite of diversity/equity/inclusion is not homogeneity/injustice/exclusion.
The opposite of DEI is merit.

Diversity means racial preferences for URM
Equity means equality of outcomes
Inclusion doesn't seem well defined but in at least one case it means accepting that men should be able to compete in women's sports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how much I really care either way but personally, I’d rather DEI requirements not exist. Not because diversity in general isn’t a good thing but because I’m Latina. The idea or mere appearance that I may have been selected, hired, picked because of some sort of diversity initiative really ticks me off.

EXACTLY.

As a woman in a male dominated field, I agree. It pisses me off that some people think I only got here because I’m the token woman and they needed me for diversity quotas. No, I’m just as competent as the men and can do the job as well as they can, and that’s why I’m here. I wish DEI never got started. And by the way, I hate to say it but unfortunately I have noticed that the women in the company used to be great and now they really aren’t. So I doubt I’m the only one who feels this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

There's only one segment who wants this and they actually come from those systems.... so the question is why.

They don’t like having to actually think.

Hmmm interesting self-reflection from you …

I get that you exist in a cloud of gotcha arguments, but there’s no appeal to the gaokao. Your kids probably study enough, now imagine everything they done making them behind and they’d need to restart high school at 4 times the pace, go to Saturday school, and stay till 10 pm in order to catch up with their competition

You realize that your kid, my kid, all of our kids are going to be competing against those kids studying until 10pm, right? The moat of American exceptionalism is drying up and our children will be in moire direct competition with chinese and indian kids than we were and our grandchildren will see almost no moat at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hope that we aren’t supporting the idea of being fine with schools discriminating just because the far right mod of to blame everything on DEI. It’s concerning how quickly everyone is forcing the pendulum in the exact opposite direction. People need to accept a bit of balance.

Agreed. There's research to support the better outcomes for all students who learn in diverse peer groups (and for businesses that hire diverse teams to do problem solving) so this is not really a result that should be cheered on without nuance.

I do appreciate that some policies were executed with a too heavy hand but opponents of any diversity goals or programs should realize their non-diverse students also do benefit from going to school with non-homogeneous students. My DS has said he would not want to attend a college or school that's mostly was all white or all male (which is what he himself is). He wants diversity for himself and supports all reasonable diversity programs aimed at increasing it.

Social science research results can be easily manipulated depending on research design, data used etc. people are so stupid to fall for that.

Bless your heart — look at all the big words you used mostly correctly.

Of course, in reality all kinds of research — including social science research — are the reason we no longer live in caves and live past 40, but you don’t care about that, do you? As long as you get to construct your reality to fit your biases, who cares what’s true, right?

DP

Do you care what is true?

If I can show you that the weight of the evidence does not support diversity at the expense of racial discrimination, would you change your mind? Or has your mind been made up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

There's only one segment who wants this and they actually come from those systems.... so the question is why.

They don’t like having to actually think.

Hmmm interesting self-reflection from you …

I get that you exist in a cloud of gotcha arguments, but there’s no appeal to the gaokao. Your kids probably study enough, now imagine everything they done making them behind and they’d need to restart high school at 4 times the pace, go to Saturday school, and stay till 10 pm in order to catch up with their competition

You realize that your kid, my kid, all of our kids are going to be competing against those kids studying until 10pm, right? The moat of American exceptionalism is drying up and our children will be in moire direct competition with chinese and indian kids than we were and our grandchildren will see almost no moat at all.

So it’s all about fear of competition? Everything else is just BS excuse. Got it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I think someone said above, it is sad that we are constantly swinging from one extreme to the other. Some basic diversity is good. We went way too far in the direction of DEI where schools were tripping over each other to show how diverse they were. And they would get brownie points for accepting the kids of black Goldman and Wachtell partners graduating from Dalton and Exeter who were in no way contributing to diversity.

What Trump is doing is going too far in the opposite direction. It is a total over-reaction. Which is not helpful either. He is fixated on a few examples of how the process was not good and fooling people into thinking those problems are universal.

Schools should try to get diverse student bodies. And in the rare case where things truly are 100% equal, take the poor first gen kid over the rich suburban kid. But schools should not have quotas (whether actual or implied) that they have to meet.

NYT had an article a year or two ago about the percentage of students who received federal aid. Duke was at the bottom of the list, though just barely, but they were chosen as the one to focus on and harass. As a result, Duke felt the need to significantly grow programs targeting these groups. Which is ridiculous. It is virtue-signaling.

And no, admissions just based on stats would be awful.

For a long time, there were consequences associated with not being woke enough and almost no consequences with being too woke.
Now there are consequences both ways and schools get whipsawed every time the white house flips. But they not only participated in this crap, they are the wellspring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

Pretty much

Most european schools are extremely homogenous.
And they also have admissions based primarily on a single admissions test or a series of tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I think someone said above, it is sad that we are constantly swinging from one extreme to the other. Some basic diversity is good. We went way too far in the direction of DEI where schools were tripping over each other to show how diverse they were. And they would get brownie points for accepting the kids of black Goldman and Wachtell partners graduating from Dalton and Exeter who were in no way contributing to diversity.

What Trump is doing is going too far in the opposite direction. It is a total over-reaction. Which is not helpful either. He is fixated on a few examples of how the process was not good and fooling people into thinking those problems are universal.

Schools should try to get diverse student bodies. And in the rare case where things truly are 100% equal, take the poor first gen kid over the rich suburban kid. But schools should not have quotas (whether actual or implied) that they have to meet.

NYT had an article a year or two ago about the percentage of students who received federal aid. Duke was at the bottom of the list, though just barely, but they were chosen as the one to focus on and harass. As a result, Duke felt the need to significantly grow programs targeting these groups. Which is ridiculous. It is virtue-signaling.

And no, admissions just based on stats would be awful.

[b]Why is it more acceptable for colleges to accept a poor first gen student over a rich suburban student, but not ok to accept a visible minority over another person who is white?

Seems like people are ok giving a small admission bump to males over females in the interest of having a more interesting learning/dating environment for women who want to attend a truly co-ed college. And ofc, colleges are publiciizing their pro-FG/LI policies to get economic diversity too. So why is gender diversity and economic diversity programs acceptable to anti-DEI people? If we can acknowledge we don't want to go to college that is nearly all women and rich, can't we acknowledge that we also don't want to go to college that is only one race?

DP

Because of the 14th amedment to the constitution.

As a policy matter, I don't think identity should be relevanty at all. But the constitution only prohibits racial discrimination. It does not prohibit preferences for FGLI kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

Really hope all this DEI crap goes away and we get back to merit/performance. I can’t read the article above.

LOL. Pining for the return of uniformity, inequity, and exclusion of qualified folks who don’t fit the mold.

DP, but meritocracy isn’t uniformity or inequity. And it’s the only way to include qualified kids unlike some forced diversity quota BS.

What does meritocracy look like.

Meritocracy looks like a system where admission or opportunity is based on demonstrated ability, effort, and achievement, regardless of a person’s background, identity, or social connections. It rewards hard work, intellectual curiosity, and excellence, not one’s identities. So the identity politics is exactly the opposite of meritocracy.

I love the buzz words, now talk about the tangible.

Like you have any tangibles🤣

So you don't have a real argument besides F diversity. Sounds about right.

I think he's trying to say F racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

Having merit based process and taking away racist considerations is not adopting the Chinese system. And nobody cares what you want or don’t want. You can’t stop it.

? give me a step by step as to how this leads us to a "merit based process." What does merit even look like for you? No top school is choosing solely by top SAT and gpa.

No, meritocracy doesn’t mean SAT and GPA only. But surely it doesn’t include race and sexual orientation etc.

I'd prefer that system. Just scale the SAT to be towards the top 0.01% of students rather than the bottom 50%.

It used to have much longer tails. I got a 1500+ back in the 1980s and there around 1000 kids with that score. Now there are about 40,000. The tails are fat in order to de-emphasize test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

There's only one segment who wants this and they actually come from those systems.... so the question is why.

They don’t like having to actually think.

Hmmm interesting self-reflection from you …

I get that you exist in a cloud of gotcha arguments, but there’s no appeal to the gaokao. Your kids probably study enough, now imagine everything they done making them behind and they’d need to restart high school at 4 times the pace, go to Saturday school, and stay till 10 pm in order to catch up with their competition

All these are just smear campaigns against those talented kids, trying to reduce them into someone who can only put in hours, as if effort without ability explains everything. as if grinding alone could produce that level of excellence. It’s projection, and a bitter attempt to drag others down to justify their own mediocrity. You can’t match the results, so you attack the method.

I can't match the result? No, I can't, because I chose Harvard over having the goal of Peking University. The systems in East Asia are toxic and awfully demanding for children.

Again, you’re equating merit based system with Chinese system, part of your smear campaign. You don’t sound too smart.

Then...talk about a merit based system that wouldn't include a dramatic resorting of our education process and intense climb in academics.

Intense climb? Really? Is it possible they’re just smarter and have better intellectual talent?

what merit system do you want? What practical changes do you want to see? Not everything needs to be a flex about your intelligence.

Something not based on one’s identity to start with. How about that?

Which would include...? I'm asking for changes in processes, not your personal propaganda.

Go back to search this thread to find out the specifics. I sssume you’re at least capable of doing that which doesn’t involve much intelligence.

Yeah, your adjectives list isn't helpful. People want to know changes to their children's education and what to prioritize. Not that you're grumpy black people got into college.

Focus on math and writing.

Math helps with deductive and analytical reasonaing and writing helps with comprehension and communication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

There's only one segment who wants this and they actually come from those systems.... so the question is why.

They don’t like having to actually think.

Hmmm interesting self-reflection from you …

I get that you exist in a cloud of gotcha arguments, but there’s no appeal to the gaokao. Your kids probably study enough, now imagine everything they done making them behind and they’d need to restart high school at 4 times the pace, go to Saturday school, and stay till 10 pm in order to catch up with their competition

All these are just smear campaigns against those talented kids, trying to reduce them into someone who can only put in hours, as if effort without ability explains everything. as if grinding alone could produce that level of excellence. It’s projection, and a bitter attempt to drag others down to justify their own mediocrity. You can’t match the results, so you attack the method.

I can't match the result? No, I can't, because I chose Harvard over having the goal of Peking University. The systems in East Asia are toxic and awfully demanding for children.

Again, you’re equating merit based system with Chinese system, part of your smear campaign. You don’t sound too smart.

Then...talk about a merit based system that wouldn't include a dramatic resorting of our education process and intense climb in academics.

Intense climb? Really? Is it possible they’re just smarter and have better intellectual talent?

what merit system do you want? What practical changes do you want to see? Not everything needs to be a flex about your intelligence.

Something not based on one’s identity to start with. How about that?

Which would include...? I'm asking for changes in processes, not your personal propaganda.

Go back to search this thread to find out the specifics. I sssume you’re at least capable of doing that which doesn’t involve much intelligence.

Yeah, your adjectives list isn't helpful. People want to know changes to their children's education and what to prioritize. Not that you're grumpy black people got into college.

DP

Nobody is grumpy black people are getting into college. ANYONE can get intoi college. People are grumpy that colleges are racially discriminating to shoehorn less qualified black kids into better colleges than they are suitable for.