SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“It's not ridiculous at all. SFFA brought the action which was successful. Scotus said stop discriminating based upon race. Colleges and universities sent out letters asserting to alumni that, nevertheless, they remained committed to diversity (but only one kind) and started playing games in the essays. Not smart to thimb your nose at SCOTUS. The numbers of asian students went down! that wasn't supposed to happen. I hope they brong a second suit for clarification. The schools are defying the ruling and putting themselves in charge of race based admissions in America.”

Yes. It is quite ridiculous. SCOTUS is the most corrupt court ever and has no credibility and no ethics. They didn’t ban it for the military. Why is that? They didn’t address legacy admissions-otherwise known as white affirmative action. Why is that? Again, it’s all a lie. Nobody is entitled to go to these schools. Get over yourselves.

They didn't ban it for the military because national security holds a special place in constitutional analysis and the military academies have potentially distinct interests in considering the race of the applicant. Did you read the opinion?

They didn't address legacy admissions but SFFA did argue that they could achieve more diversity by abandoning legacy admissions but there is no constitutional prohibition from favoring legacies, but there is a constitutional prohibition from racial discrimination. Did you rad the opinion?

It's true, nobody is entitled to go to these schools, not even under-represented minorities.
It sounds like you are trying to defend racial discrimination when it suits your purposes.

Just a reminder of the vast gulf in academic ability of different groups:
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

8% of blacks get a 1200 or higher on the SAT
5% of hispanics get above a 1300 on the SAT
7% of whites get above a 1400 on the SAT
9% of asians get above a 1500 on the SAT

1% of blacks get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
2% of hispanics get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
7% of whites get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
23% of asians get a 1400 or higher on the SAT

Study harder and compete. Don't make excuses and complain.
Studies show that these differences are attributable in large part due to extra time studying. We've known this for at least a decade.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1406402111

If you don't want to study until past midnight every night, then don't complain that the ones that do get into better schools than you.

Academic ability as it applies to SATs only! SATs are only one factor.

It is the single most predictive factor and correlates with pretty much every other important factor.

What are the SAT scores of the CEOs of Fortune 100 companies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that white people, and really people of all races, mostly dont want to go to schools that are dominated by asians. This is why Asian universities, despite the fact that they are some of the best/most competitive in the world, are mostly no names. For whatever reason, people of all kinds flock to historically white institutions and all desperately want to be included. The same desire to be surrounded by asians does not exist in the reverse for white people, and there are so many examples of this phenomenon: https://psmag.com/news/ghosts-of-white-people-past-witnessing-white-flight-from-an-asian-ethnoburb/

People aren't flocking to Harvard to be surrounded by white people. ROFLMAO.

[Anonymous]

Asian DQ scores are far too low for Duke, Princeton, and Yale.

(Douchiness quotient)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that white people, and really people of all races, mostly dont want to go to schools that are dominated by asians. This is why Asian universities, despite the fact that they are some of the best/most competitive in the world, are mostly no names. For whatever reason, people of all kinds flock to historically white institutions and all desperately want to be included. The same desire to be surrounded by asians does not exist in the reverse for white people, and there are so many examples of this phenomenon: https://psmag.com/news/ghosts-of-white-people-past-witnessing-white-flight-from-an-asian-ethnoburb/

So you think we should restrict the number of asian people to make the white people feel more comfortable?
Lawrence Lowell said the same thing about having too many jews. It's why we have holistic admissions in the first place.
Are you actively courting the racists? I guess we know who wants to make america great again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

If you think they’re fighting for anyone besides their personal child, I have got a lovely bridge you should buy.

If you think anyone is fighting for anyone besides their personal child or their personal vanity, I have a lovely bridge you should buy.

I disagree. There are plenty of folks who support URM admissions into universities, who aren’t URMs.

Those people are mostly trying to alleviate white guilt (mostly at the expense of asian kids)

The asians that do this are sellouts that are throwing asian kids under the bus to suck up to liberal white people

You’re arguing the only reason white people support Affirmative Action is white guilt? You are grossly misinformed.

So then give me your reason for supporting affirmative action that doesn't involve the horrible stuff that white people did to black people?

Our universities are educating future doctors, lawyers, politicians etc . . . We know that if America is going to overcome racism in the present, we need diverse people in those positions, and people who have experience in diverse environments. So, increasing diversity, and particularly increasing participation by members of underrepresented and historically marginalized groups, is important as it increases the quality of education offered, and the quality of the graduates of those institutions.

Sure, Harvard could only educate white students, but then their students wouldn't be prepared to solve problems in the real world, because they would be coming from an artificial one. Creating leaders who are ready for the real world should be the mission of elite educational institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

If they believed in fair standards for all, they would’ve fought to remove legacy admissions as well.

On what grounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

Well….what’s the conspiracy theory now?

Of course the new lie is that colleges are still doing AA and trying to guess race aka massive sore losers who can’t get over the fact that more than 1 race can be admitted into the Ivy League.

I mean they still are but in a more indirect way. My daughter is applying to colleges right now and it is pretty clear why some schools are asking specific short answers questions. I don't really care one way or the other but if you think it isn't happening then you are pretty naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities don’t have the sole mission of admitting the 1000 smartest students every year. That’s not their goal. They cannot say they thought because a lot of your heads would explode.

But they shouldn't be racially discriminating.
Racial discrimination is an impermissible goal.
And that is what they think is still happening despite the supreme court telling them to knock it off.

And frankly rank order admission to college based on academic stats is pretty common in the rest of the world.

America is not the rest of the world. Go to college in those countries if that’s your priority.

I am curious...is there an American Expat/immigrant community over in England/Europe/India that cries like babies about the admissions process in those countries?

Maybe there is...but I doubt it. I imagine those expats/immigrants accept how the system works and figure out how to make the best of it.

The UK looks at grades and test scores, that's it. Asian Brits do better in the UK academically than any other groups, just like here.

pupils from the Chinese ethnic group had the highest Attainment 8 score out of all ethnic groups (66.1), followed by pupils from the Indian ethnic group (61.3)

people from the Chinese ethnic group had the highest entry rate in every year from 2006 to 2022

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/

As an example:



https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/ethnicity

Chinese make up 1% of the UK population but take up 16% of the seats in Oxford.

They don't need to whine about it because the system there is transparent.

My DC got super high stats on their GPA (from a magnet) and SAT scores (1580). My IL is here from the UK and was gobsmacked that a kid with those stats didn't even get an interview or on the waitlist for a T10. In the UK, they said such a student would at least get an interview at the top schools.

DC is a dual citizen and said that they would consider moving to the UK if they have kids because the college admissions process here is crazy.

Test prep and cram mills are prevalent in Asia. It doesn’t make anyone smarter.

Of course it does. What you derisively call prepping is more accurately described as studying.

Studying to pick the right answer is not the same as studying a subject.

You think they spend 5-10 hours a week from 1st grade though high school to pick a right answer on a standardized test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities don’t have the sole mission of admitting the 1000 smartest students every year. That’s not their goal. They cannot say they thought because a lot of your heads would explode.

But they shouldn't be racially discriminating.
Racial discrimination is an impermissible goal.
And that is what they think is still happening despite the supreme court telling them to knock it off.

And frankly rank order admission to college based on academic stats is pretty common in the rest of the world.

America is not the rest of the world. Go to college in those countries if that’s your priority.

I am curious...is there an American Expat/immigrant community over in England/Europe/India that cries like babies about the admissions process in those countries?

Maybe there is...but I doubt it. I imagine those expats/immigrants accept how the system works and figure out how to make the best of it.

The UK looks at grades and test scores, that's it. Asian Brits do better in the UK academically than any other groups, just like here.

pupils from the Chinese ethnic group had the highest Attainment 8 score out of all ethnic groups (66.1), followed by pupils from the Indian ethnic group (61.3)

people from the Chinese ethnic group had the highest entry rate in every year from 2006 to 2022

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/

As an example:



https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/ethnicity

Chinese make up 1% of the UK population but take up 16% of the seats in Oxford.

They don't need to whine about it because the system there is transparent.

My DC got super high stats on their GPA (from a magnet) and SAT scores (1580). My IL is here from the UK and was gobsmacked that a kid with those stats didn't even get an interview or on the waitlist for a T10. In the UK, they said such a student would at least get an interview at the top schools.

DC is a dual citizen and said that they would consider moving to the UK if they have kids because the college admissions process here is crazy.

Test prep and cram mills are prevalent in Asia. It doesn’t make anyone smarter.

Of course it does. What you derisively call prepping is more accurately described as studying.

Studying to pick the right answer is not the same as studying a subject.

in order to pick the right answer, you have to study the subject.

[Anonymous]

Pull up pictures of students at best college in China, Japan etc. Notice zero diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“It's not ridiculous at all. SFFA brought the action which was successful. Scotus said stop discriminating based upon race. Colleges and universities sent out letters asserting to alumni that, nevertheless, they remained committed to diversity (but only one kind) and started playing games in the essays. Not smart to thimb your nose at SCOTUS. The numbers of asian students went down! that wasn't supposed to happen. I hope they brong a second suit for clarification. The schools are defying the ruling and putting themselves in charge of race based admissions in America.”

Yes. It is quite ridiculous. SCOTUS is the most corrupt court ever and has no credibility and no ethics. They didn’t ban it for the military. Why is that? They didn’t address legacy admissions-otherwise known as white affirmative action. Why is that? Again, it’s all a lie. Nobody is entitled to go to these schools. Get over yourselves.

They didn't ban it for the military because national security holds a special place in constitutional analysis and the military academies have potentially distinct interests in considering the race of the applicant. Did you read the opinion?

Did you read the opinion? The majority opinion exempts the military academies from its decision in a footnote that doesn't cite a single statute, prior opinion, or legal principle:

The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181, 223 n.4 (2023)

That's it. That's the only mention of military academies in the majority opinion. So again: Did you read the opinion?

Now, if "national security holds a special place in constitutional analysis and the military academies have potentially distinct interests in considering the race of the applicant," as you claim, why didn't the Supreme Court say that? The Supreme Court made no mention of "special status" of the military in Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013) (Fisher I), or Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher II), 579 U.S. 365 (2016).

The Supreme Court did make reference to the "compelling interests" of the military in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330-31 (2003), and ruled that justification for affirmative action at West Point was identical to that in Harvard Yard (or General Motors, for that matter):

These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. Brief for 3M et al. as Amici Curiae 5; Brief for General Motors Corp. as Amicus Curiae 3–4. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, “[b]ased on [their] decades of experience,” a “highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps . . . is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security.” Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae 5. The primary sources for the Nation’s officer corps are the service academies and the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), the latter comprising students already admitted to participating colleges and universities. Ibid. At present, “the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC used limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies.” Ibid (emphasis in original). To fulfill its mission, the military “must be selective in admissions for training and education for the officer corps, and it must train and educate a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps in a racially diverse educational setting.” Id., at 29 (emphasis in original). We agree that “it requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country’s other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective.” Ibid.

So what changed between Grutter and SFFA?

The passage of time. And clearer minds reading the constitution faithfully to prohibit racial discrimination.

That 20 years was about 5 years before Sandra Day O'Connor's expiration date for affirmative action.

The military -- you know, that group of folks you say has a "special" status with "compelling interests" -- not only argued for the necessity of affirmative action for themselves but for private universities as well. And the Supreme Court agreed. Then, twenty years later, poof! So what changed other than the composition of the members of the Supreme Court? When and where did the Supreme Court (or any court) rule that the interests of Annapolis and Yale diverged "in this context"? I showed my work. You best show yours. (You won't.)

The opinion specifically states that they reserve on the issue because: "the military academies have potentially distinct interests in considering the race of the applicant"
I even put it in the post you are responding to so you wouldn't make a fool of yourself but I failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can look at how race affects someone on an individual level:
“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise”
-John Roberts

You should read the rest of that paragraph. It goes on to say you can't use the essays as a way to get around the prohibition against racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“It's not ridiculous at all. SFFA brought the action which was successful. Scotus said stop discriminating based upon race. Colleges and universities sent out letters asserting to alumni that, nevertheless, they remained committed to diversity (but only one kind) and started playing games in the essays. Not smart to thimb your nose at SCOTUS. The numbers of asian students went down! that wasn't supposed to happen. I hope they brong a second suit for clarification. The schools are defying the ruling and putting themselves in charge of race based admissions in America.”

Yes. It is quite ridiculous. SCOTUS is the most corrupt court ever and has no credibility and no ethics. They didn’t ban it for the military. Why is that? They didn’t address legacy admissions-otherwise known as white affirmative action. Why is that? Again, it’s all a lie. Nobody is entitled to go to these schools. Get over yourselves.

They didn't ban it for the military because national security holds a special place in constitutional analysis and the military academies have potentially distinct interests in considering the race of the applicant. Did you read the opinion?

They didn't address legacy admissions but SFFA did argue that they could achieve more diversity by abandoning legacy admissions but there is no constitutional prohibition from favoring legacies, but there is a constitutional prohibition from racial discrimination. Did you rad the opinion?

It's true, nobody is entitled to go to these schools, not even under-represented minorities.
It sounds like you are trying to defend racial discrimination when it suits your purposes.

Just a reminder of the vast gulf in academic ability of different groups:
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

8% of blacks get a 1200 or higher on the SAT
5% of hispanics get above a 1300 on the SAT
7% of whites get above a 1400 on the SAT
9% of asians get above a 1500 on the SAT

1% of blacks get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
2% of hispanics get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
7% of whites get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
23% of asians get a 1400 or higher on the SAT

Study harder and compete. Don't make excuses and complain.
Studies show that these differences are attributable in large part due to extra time studying. We've known this for at least a decade.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1406402111

If you don't want to study until past midnight every night, then don't complain that the ones that do get into better schools than you.

Academic ability as it applies to SATs only! SATs are only one factor.

It is the single most predictive factor and correlates with pretty much every other important factor.

It is an important factor, which is why more and more universities are requiring it. Grades aren't indicative of how well you do in college because of grade inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pull up pictures of students at best college in China, Japan etc. Notice zero diversity.

Same at the best universities in most countries. Nigeria's best college is almost entirely black. india's best colleges are almost entirely indian. France's best colleges are almost entirely white. Etc.

Diversity simply isn't that important for learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

If you think they’re fighting for anyone besides their personal child, I have got a lovely bridge you should buy.

If you think anyone is fighting for anyone besides their personal child or their personal vanity, I have a lovely bridge you should buy.

I disagree. There are plenty of folks who support URM admissions into universities, who aren’t URMs.

Those people are mostly trying to alleviate white guilt (mostly at the expense of asian kids)

The asians that do this are sellouts that are throwing asian kids under the bus to suck up to liberal white people

You’re arguing the only reason white people support Affirmative Action is white guilt? You are grossly misinformed.

So then give me your reason for supporting affirmative action that doesn't involve the horrible stuff that white people did to black people?

Our universities are educating future doctors, lawyers, politicians etc . . . We know that if America is going to overcome racism in the present, we need diverse people in those positions, and people who have experience in diverse environments. So, increasing diversity, and particularly increasing participation by members of underrepresented and historically marginalized groups, is important as it increases the quality of education offered, and the quality of the graduates of those institutions.

Sure, Harvard could only educate white students, but then their students wouldn't be prepared to solve problems in the real world, because they would be coming from an artificial one. Creating leaders who are ready for the real world should be the mission of elite educational institutions.

So you think going to the same college as a black kid will make them understand black people?
That black kid is there to help educate the white kids about black people?