The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
NP. I dont care "why." It's racism, plain and simple. |
Anonymous
No, it isn't, and the fact you keep repeating it proves you don't understand. Or don't WANT to, which is far more likely. |
Anonymous
Crazy lady, that was my first post in a month, so how am I repeating myself? Please explain how it's not racist. |
Anonymous
See, the difference I that I don't view athletics as an irrelevant trait (not that my kids benefit from it) in admissions, but I do think race by itself should be. You may think that race should be a relevant trait Fine. Admit it. Just realize that that makes you a racist by definition. |
Anonymous
I don’t think any of the preferences are relevant - they should all be eliminated. . I think favoring only those preferences that apply in 70% of cases to rich white kids is an interesting position to take in the name of fairness and community but you do you. |
Anonymous
But you are okay with favoritism when it comes to SAT scores which favors kids that are not necessarily smarter but just good at test prep. |
Anonymous
Most of the posters here who trash athletes are likely ones who have a very narrow view of acceptable extracurriculars for their kids. High academic achievement is a must, obviously, and music is acceptable along with academic competitions and a few others. Their kids don’t tend to achieve in sports, and they tell themselves that those kids who do are less intelligent and less prepared for rigorous academics regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And they don’t enjoy watching sports so they don’t believe athletic talent could ever be an important asset to the community. If they read any of the studies describing how athletes in most sports are, on average, more successful in their chosen careers than non-athletes, then that’s more evidence to them that something is wrong with the country. |
Anonymous
Do I favor using the results of an academic test to differentiate between applicants to a university more than whether they are the 1200th best football player in the country for that year . . . . hmmm . . . YES. Do you really think athletic ability is MORE relevant than SAT scores? |
Anonymous
Crazy person, I am a dude, so how can I be a lady? Forgive me for thinking you were repeating the idiocy instead of just joining the chorus. It's not racist because it is not biased against specific races. At colleges where any race is a URM, they benefit from the balance. Like Asians at Notre Dame or whites at Spelman. |
Anonymous
| Kids who are musically talented or play in the band are given preference also - French horn players to Yale, orchestra level musicians to Harvard, etc. These kids have a passion and practice 3-4 hours a day and have the academic ability. Same with most athletes. Yes, the athletic route is now being used by wealthy parents as a route and the universities use them to get these wealthy parents to donate so that they can use these money for scholarships, etc. |
Anonymous
The question you posed is why are you okay with a measurement that is racially biased. My question to you, since SAT scores have been proven to be racially biased, why are you okay with a measure that is racially biased. |
Anonymous
1. You're literally posting this in a thread about a study titled: "Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard" 2. This study says: "We find that a white non-ALDC applicant with a 10% chance of admission would see a five-fold increase in admissions likelihood if they were a legacy; more than a seven-fold increase if they were on the dean’s interest list; and that they would be admitted with near certainty if they were a recruited athlete" "In our preferred model, the similar increases in odds are substantially higher at over eight (legacies) and five thousand (athletes) times" "Table 8 compares the ratings received by recruited athlete admits to those received by non-ALDC applicants and admits, focusing on the overall rating and the four profile ratings with the exception of the athletic rating.71 With the publicly available documents, we are able to form meaningful bounds on the ratings of recruited athletes.72 Recruited athlete admits are universally weaker than non-ALDC admits on these ratings" "In many cases—and in contrast to LDC admits—recruited athlete admits are weaker than non-ALDC applicants. Non-ALDC applicants on average have higher academic and extracurricular ratings than admitted recruited athletes of the same race for all groups except Hispanics on the academic rating" <--- Note this says non-ALDC applicants have higher academic and extracurricular rating than admitted athletes. So when you're talking about evidence, here it is. The statement has never been they are less intelligent, but are they less qualified? Yes. 3. The question of how athletes do AFTER college is not relevant to if they should be admitted to college in the first place. Yes, it's great that they got this chance because they could hit a ball, but they took that chance away from someone else, and who knows what that person would have done if only they had the opportunity. 4. Athletics isn't just another extracurricular. There is no music preference or painting preference. There are no special admissions procedures for students who excel at debate. You cannot compare these to immense advantage athletic applicants get in every way. 5. Even taken as athletes, the athletes getting these preferences are not the cream of the crop. You're not getting the best football players, soccer players, baseball players, etc. You're getting athletes who are, for the most part, good, but not great. What is the value then? Being pretty good at something is enough to vault you over all other more qualified applicants? 6. As to whether we enjoy watching sports - we do. We just don't think watching mediocre sports (and 95% of sports at the Ivy League level are mediocre) is worth letting less qualified students into a school. And in the case of the Harvard community, the numbers speak for themselves - the average attendance at a home football game last year (Yale excluded) was about 9800. and more people attend football games than any other sporting event. No one cares. If you think they do, see how many people are watching a Harvard baseball game and you can probably introduce yourself to every spectator by the end of the 2nd inning. |
Anonymous
The athletic preference you champion is 70% white. Are you in favor of a preference that is racially biased and does not even purport to measure academic ability? SAT scores are part of an overall picture and can be compensated for by other academic measures. Unlike athletics which lets an unqualified applicant jump the line, SAT scores are part of an application. You don't have great scores but you have great grades, you still have a shot. Harvard (or any other school) doesn't just list applicants in order of SAT score and then admit the top 2000. They do that with athletics. So between the two, yes, I think SAT scores are more relevant than athletic ability. |
Anonymous
The study is flawed. Athletic kids don't take the SAT more than once, they don't test prep. Once they know they are in it doesn't matter. So you are comparing apples and oranges. Also, it's not about attendance it's about former Yale athletes hiring current Yale athletes. It's a thing, the boosters love sports. They are going to give these kids more internships and jobs. They did not take the chance from somebody else. They got the spot and they thrive after, it shows the other measurements are not that great at determining who will be successful. |
Anonymous
So you support a racially biased measurement... just like those that support athletics. |