Supreme Court Is Asked to Hear a New Admissions Case on Race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

since TJ admissions are race-blind, it's not a factor.

[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:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

[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:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

[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:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

[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:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

[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:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

[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:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

This is so true. For all that Asian Americans want to minimize the awfulness that has been perpetrated on Black people in this country, not one of them would welcome waking up the next morning as a Black person. Even a slightly better shot at Harvard isn’t worth the day-in-day-out slog of being Black and suffering all of the indignities that come with it… many of them perpetrated by the same Asians that then come on to places like this and claim that their lives are worse.

[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:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

That's a pretty pedantic way to look at things that basically forecloses the possibility of racism in admission. The data shows that "race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” If you want to read that in a way that does mean that the only reason that 'significant portion of black and hispanic applicants' is race, then you do you. The plain meaning is that the same applicant is who is accepted because they are black is rejected if they are Asian.

[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:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

That's a pretty pedantic way to look at things that basically forecloses the possibility of racism in admission. The data shows that "race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” If you want to read that in a way that does mean that the only reason that 'significant portion of black and hispanic applicants' is race, then you do you. The plain meaning is that the same applicant is who is accepted because they are black is rejected if they are Asian.

This is not an assertion that you can make because two applicants are never, ever, ever the same across all possible axes. That's fine if it's the plain meaning of what you're saying, or even what the Supreme Court is saying, but it's untestable and therefore unfalsifiable, so it's meaningless. The two hypothetical candidates that you are imagining here are not the same, and cannot be the same, because their experiences are different.

Being Black in America is an element of adversity that is impossible for an individual of any other race to mirror. Every accomplishment that is made by a Black person must therefore exist in that context. And of course, there are levels to that reality... the experience of a Black kid in Great Falls, Virginia is very different from that of a Black kid in Gary, Indiana - and that's why we have geographic diversity as an element of the process.

A good place to start if Asian Americans want to end the necessity of affirmative action is in the mirror. Stop assuming that Black people are "less than" just because you believe their culture to be inferior or somehow less deserving of academic opportunity - or, you know, that they're all going to rob you - and you'll have taken a big step in reducing the need to contextualize their accomplishments.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

That's a pretty pedantic way to look at things that basically forecloses the possibility of racism in admission. The data shows that "race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” If you want to read that in a way that does mean that the only reason that 'significant portion of black and hispanic applicants' is race, then you do you. The plain meaning is that the same applicant is who is accepted because they are black is rejected if they are Asian.

This is not an assertion that you can make because two applicants are never, ever, ever the same across all possible axes. That's fine if it's the plain meaning of what you're saying, or even what the Supreme Court is saying, but it's untestable and therefore unfalsifiable, so it's meaningless. The two hypothetical candidates that you are imagining here are not the same, and cannot be the same, because their experiences are different.

Being Black in America is an element of adversity that is impossible for an individual of any other race to mirror. Every accomplishment that is made by a Black person must therefore exist in that context. And of course, there are levels to that reality... the experience of a Black kid in Great Falls, Virginia is very different from that of a Black kid in Gary, Indiana - and that's why we have geographic diversity as an element of the process.

A good place to start if Asian Americans want to end the necessity of affirmative action is in the mirror. Stop assuming that Black people are "less than" just because you believe their culture to be inferior or somehow less deserving of academic opportunity - or, you know, that they're all going to rob you - and you'll have taken a big step in reducing the need to contextualize their accomplishments.

Actually, you can because the only information at the final cut is race, financial aid status, legacy and athletic status. Harvard was arrogant enough to make the case simple.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

That's a pretty pedantic way to look at things that basically forecloses the possibility of racism in admission. The data shows that "race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” If you want to read that in a way that does mean that the only reason that 'significant portion of black and hispanic applicants' is race, then you do you. The plain meaning is that the same applicant is who is accepted because they are black is rejected if they are Asian.

This is not an assertion that you can make because two applicants are never, ever, ever the same across all possible axes. That's fine if it's the plain meaning of what you're saying, or even what the Supreme Court is saying, but it's untestable and therefore unfalsifiable, so it's meaningless. The two hypothetical candidates that you are imagining here are not the same, and cannot be the same, because their experiences are different.

Being Black in America is an element of adversity that is impossible for an individual of any other race to mirror. Every accomplishment that is made by a Black person must therefore exist in that context. And of course, there are levels to that reality... the experience of a Black kid in Great Falls, Virginia is very different from that of a Black kid in Gary, Indiana - and that's why we have geographic diversity as an element of the process.

A good place to start if Asian Americans want to end the necessity of affirmative action is in the mirror. Stop assuming that Black people are "less than" just because you believe their culture to be inferior or somehow less deserving of academic opportunity - or, you know, that they're all going to rob you - and you'll have taken a big step in reducing the need to contextualize their accomplishments.

Actually, you can because the only information at the final cut is race, financial aid status, legacy and athletic status. Harvard was arrogant enough to make the case simple.

My read on that is that you only do that with a list of candidates that you have evaluated as equally qualified. Which can be a very large number, to be sure.

It would not surprise me to learn that there might be some colleges who engage in a similar process but who provide a favorable rating to ALL students of color because perhaps they don’t have enough Asian students to provide an adequate experience to their student body.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

That's a pretty pedantic way to look at things that basically forecloses the possibility of racism in admission. The data shows that "race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” If you want to read that in a way that does mean that the only reason that 'significant portion of black and hispanic applicants' is race, then you do you. The plain meaning is that the same applicant is who is accepted because they are black is rejected if they are Asian.

This is not an assertion that you can make because two applicants are never, ever, ever the same across all possible axes. That's fine if it's the plain meaning of what you're saying, or even what the Supreme Court is saying, but it's untestable and therefore unfalsifiable, so it's meaningless. The two hypothetical candidates that you are imagining here are not the same, and cannot be the same, because their experiences are different.

Being Black in America is an element of adversity that is impossible for an individual of any other race to mirror. Every accomplishment that is made by a Black person must therefore exist in that context. And of course, there are levels to that reality... the experience of a Black kid in Great Falls, Virginia is very different from that of a Black kid in Gary, Indiana - and that's why we have geographic diversity as an element of the process.

A good place to start if Asian Americans want to end the necessity of affirmative action is in the mirror. Stop assuming that Black people are "less than" just because you believe their culture to be inferior or somehow less deserving of academic opportunity - or, you know, that they're all going to rob you - and you'll have taken a big step in reducing the need to contextualize their accomplishments.

Actually, you can because the only information at the final cut is race, financial aid status, legacy and athletic status. Harvard was arrogant enough to make the case simple.

My read on that is that you only do that with a list of candidates that you have evaluated as equally qualified. Which can be a very large number, to be sure.

It would not surprise me to learn that there might be some colleges who engage in a similar process but who provide a favorable rating to ALL students of color because perhaps they don’t have enough Asian students to provide an adequate experience to their student body.

This is actually a fair point. I hadn’t considered that.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

That's a pretty pedantic way to look at things that basically forecloses the possibility of racism in admission. The data shows that "race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” If you want to read that in a way that does mean that the only reason that 'significant portion of black and hispanic applicants' is race, then you do you. The plain meaning is that the same applicant is who is accepted because they are black is rejected if they are Asian.

This is not an assertion that you can make because two applicants are never, ever, ever the same across all possible axes. That's fine if it's the plain meaning of what you're saying, or even what the Supreme Court is saying, but it's untestable and therefore unfalsifiable, so it's meaningless. The two hypothetical candidates that you are imagining here are not the same, and cannot be the same, because their experiences are different.

Being Black in America is an element of adversity that is impossible for an individual of any other race to mirror. Every accomplishment that is made by a Black person must therefore exist in that context. And of course, there are levels to that reality... the experience of a Black kid in Great Falls, Virginia is very different from that of a Black kid in Gary, Indiana - and that's why we have geographic diversity as an element of the process.

A good place to start if Asian Americans want to end the necessity of affirmative action is in the mirror. Stop assuming that Black people are "less than" just because you believe their culture to be inferior or somehow less deserving of academic opportunity - or, you know, that they're all going to rob you - and you'll have taken a big step in reducing the need to contextualize their accomplishments.

Those with a perpetual victim mindset tend to create the situations from which they suffer.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The headline of this thread is problematic...

The TJ case is not about the use of race as a determining factor in admissions processes. To suggest that it is misrepresents the case and lumps it in with Harvard and UNC, which did so explicitly.

The affirmative action cases (Harvard/UNC) did have a dicta to the effect that what cannot be done directly... cannot be done indirectly. The case will come down to whether the racial communications by the board members related to lowering Asin numbers etc. and other evidence of indirect means of achieving a certain level of racial composition through indirect means employed by fcps through out the years will be ruled adequate.

That's a bit of a stretch. By this logic, if standardized test scores have a correlation to race (which they do), then they likewise can't be used, as they're indirectly selecting on race.

I will make it easy for you, what the Supreme Court is saying the Harvard case is, you cannot discriminate against a racial minority group by hiding and covering up what your are thinking and doing in order to deceptively do something what you cannot do without the deceptions and pretending.

So what you’re saying it, you can’t design an admissions process that excludes racial minorities that are on balance economically disadvantaged by emphasizing standardized testing - which demonstrably favors wealthier groups.

Got it.

That seems like a stretch, but if you are inclined to believe crazy conspiracy theories sure...

DP. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Geographic/economic diversity => increases # of minorities
Standardized testing => increases # of wealthy kids

I don't disagree with you I just don't see it as some twisted plot. I believe both geographic and economic diversity and standardized testing can play a part in the process.

Speaking as an extremely pro-reform advocate...

I don't think you're wrong about this. I've always been of the belief that there should be multiple paths to TJ, and I don't think there is anything wrong with standardized testing being one of those paths.

The difficulty is that you have a very loud group of people who take advantage of the simplicity of evaluation based on standardized testing to drive their narrative.

Look at what happens in college admissions right now - many schools use SAT and ACT scores as one factor amongst a broad spectrum. They then are forced to publish the scores across demographics and - surprise surprise - Asian students and wealthy students who are admitted score significantly higher on average than other students. Those other students, though, were not admitted because of their test scores - they were admitted because of some other strength in their application, while many of the Asian and wealthy students were admitted because the exam scores were the strongest piece of their application.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that's the case for ALL students in those groups, but if it is the case for enough of them, that will create discrepancies in average scores when you're talking about small sample sizes.)

When that happens, those groups cry foul and claim, erroneously, that they are "held to a higher standard", when that's not what's actually happening in the admissions process. It's just that more of those students got selected because of their exam scores, while other students got selected because of something else that they brought to the process.

That 'strength' is now illegal to use in admissions, hence the rise of test optional. Cute euphemism though

If you believe that what I am referring to is the color of their skin or the origins of their parents, you're wrong.

But I'm actually quite a fan of test optional - I'd just be more of a fan of it if people didn't use the exam scores as an excuse to whine about certain groups having to perform to a higher standard when their exam scores are the strongest part of their application.

The Harvard discovery made it pretty clear that the only factor getting them in over Asian Applicants was the color of their skin and that there were different benchmarks for different races

Citation needed.

Have you already forgotten about personality factors? When Asian applicants did better on GPA, SATs, and ECs they needed some way to keep them out.

That isn't a citation. I'm asking you to provide evidence to support the assertion that to only reason that certain candidates for Harvard were extended admission was the color of their skin. It's inappropriate to refer to them as having gotten in "over Asian applicants" because no one is entitled to a positive evaluation in an admissions process or a space at a prestigious university.

Be as granular as possible in defending your position

"Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

Is the Supreme Court good enough for you?

In this case, no.

There is a significant amount of daylight between "race is a determinative tip for" and "only reason certain candidates were extended admission offers for". Looking at the wording you gave, there is no reason why two candidates couldn't be 100% equally qualified - this happens a staggering amount in admissions processes - and the race piece is the one item that unbalances the scales.

Affirmative action will cease to be a necessary piece of elite academic admissions processes when the experiences of the various races in America are actually equivalent for at least a full generation. As long as the experience of being Black in America is fundamentally worse than the experience of belonging to any other race, the academic experience in elite environments will be incomplete without Black representation. You simply cannot teach kids how to be a contributing member of society without exposing them to perspectives that are well-represented in the real world.

That's a pretty pedantic way to look at things that basically forecloses the possibility of racism in admission. The data shows that "race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” If you want to read that in a way that does mean that the only reason that 'significant portion of black and hispanic applicants' is race, then you do you. The plain meaning is that the same applicant is who is accepted because they are black is rejected if they are Asian.

This is not an assertion that you can make because two applicants are never, ever, ever the same across all possible axes. That's fine if it's the plain meaning of what you're saying, or even what the Supreme Court is saying, but it's untestable and therefore unfalsifiable, so it's meaningless. The two hypothetical candidates that you are imagining here are not the same, and cannot be the same, because their experiences are different.

Being Black in America is an element of adversity that is impossible for an individual of any other race to mirror. Every accomplishment that is made by a Black person must therefore exist in that context. And of course, there are levels to that reality... the experience of a Black kid in Great Falls, Virginia is very different from that of a Black kid in Gary, Indiana - and that's why we have geographic diversity as an element of the process.

A good place to start if Asian Americans want to end the necessity of affirmative action is in the mirror. Stop assuming that Black people are "less than" just because you believe their culture to be inferior or somehow less deserving of academic opportunity - or, you know, that they're all going to rob you - and you'll have taken a big step in reducing the need to contextualize their accomplishments.

Those with a perpetual victim mindset tend to create the situations from which they suffer.

Like when some members of a group that makes up a small segment of the population but accounts for the majority of TJ admissions claim they're being discriminated against?