Update on Harvard Lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main effect of all this will be the end of standardized testing!

This.

Right, because objective assessments of intellect are a terrible thing. It's much better to assess applicants on skin color.

standardized tests are not "objective assessments of intellect." They measure prepping (and the money to prep) and test taking skills. Not at all the same as intellect.

Actually you’re dead wrong. Standardized tests are an excellent predictor of academic successs. And as much as you’d like to believe that prepping can dramatically move the needle, studies have show that it has minimal impact.

No, good grades are better predictor of academic success. Test scores just aren't that imortant, nor are they predictive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AA is a small price to pay for hundred years of slavery and injustice. No societal harm in preferential treatment for the greater good. The one who lost out in Harvard can go to Yale, or Princeton, or Stanford. The minority, on the other hand, with significantly lower stats, might be losing out in the once in a life lottery. We can use more diverse neurosurgeons and rocket scientists.

Can't wait for that neurosurgeon with significantly lower stats to operate on you

The EEO neurosurgeon will not be operating on you. S/he will be lording over non-EEO neurosurgeons who'll be doing all the heavy lifting. The EEO neurosurgeons are needed, not as grunts, but as the brains behind corporations and hospitals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main effect of all this will be the end of standardized testing!

This.

Right, because objective assessments of intellect are a terrible thing. It's much better to assess applicants on skin color.

standardized tests are not "objective assessments of intellect." They measure prepping (and the money to prep) and test taking skills. Not at all the same as intellect.

Actually you’re dead wrong. Standardized tests are an excellent predictor of academic successs. And as much as you’d like to believe that prepping can dramatically move the needle, studies have show that it has minimal impact.

You need to do more research:
https://blog.collegevine.com/how-good-are-the-sat-act-at-predicting-college-success/

I can also link to academic journals, but you probably will not have access or else you work for a university as I do.

[Anonymous]

Ooooh. A job at a university...

And exactly how large of a correlation in a cross-sectional is large and important?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AA is a small price to pay for hundred years of slavery and injustice. No societal harm in preferential treatment for the greater good. The one who lost out in Harvard can go to Yale, or Princeton, or Stanford. The minority, on the other hand, with significantly lower stats, might be losing out in the once in a life lottery. We can use more diverse neurosurgeons and rocket scientists.

Can't wait for that neurosurgeon with significantly lower stats to operate on you

The EEO neurosurgeon will not be operating on you. S/he will be lording over non-EEO neurosurgeons who'll be doing all the heavy lifting. The EEO neurosurgeons are needed, not as grunts, but as the brains behind corporations and hospitals.

Looks like you do need some brain surgery.. to fix your pipe dream problem.

If EEO neurosurgeons are really that good, they will already be doing all the stuff you are talking about. Talent always bubbles to the top. No one is going to make them the puppet master because they are EEO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main effect of all this will be the end of standardized testing!

This.

Right, because objective assessments of intellect are a terrible thing. It's much better to assess applicants on skin color.

standardized tests are not "objective assessments of intellect." They measure prepping (and the money to prep) and test taking skills. Not at all the same as intellect.

Actually you’re dead wrong. Standardized tests are an excellent predictor of academic successs. And as much as you’d like to believe that prepping can dramatically move the needle, studies have show that it has minimal impact.

No, good grades are better predictor of academic success. Test scores just aren't that imortant, nor are they predictive.

Actually, most research out there shows that SAT scores are predictive of academic success. As are grades. Grades and SAT scores are better predictors than either alone.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612438732

University of Minnesota researchers Paul Sackett and Nathan Kuncel have done a lot of research on this with HUGE datasets. It's pretty convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main effect of all this will be the end of standardized testing!

This.

Right, because objective assessments of intellect are a terrible thing. It's much better to assess applicants on skin color.

standardized tests are not "objective assessments of intellect." They measure prepping (and the money to prep) and test taking skills. Not at all the same as intellect.

Actually you’re dead wrong. Standardized tests are an excellent predictor of academic successs. And as much as you’d like to believe that prepping can dramatically move the needle, studies have show that it has minimal impact.

No, good grades are better predictor of academic success. Test scores just aren't that imortant, nor are they predictive.

Actually, most research out there shows that SAT scores are predictive of academic success. As are grades. Grades and SAT scores are better predictors than either alone.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612438732

University of Minnesota researchers Paul Sackett and Nathan Kuncel have done a lot of research on this with HUGE datasets. It's pretty convincing.

This is a good write up in Slate about it: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/04/what_do_sat_and_iq_tests_measure_general_intelligence_predicts_school_and.html

[Anonymous]

Good, balanced article that provides some context to the current debate..

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/the-rise-and-fall-of-affirmative-action

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main effect of all this will be the end of standardized testing!

This.

Right, because objective assessments of intellect are a terrible thing. It's much better to assess applicants on skin color.

standardized tests are not "objective assessments of intellect." They measure prepping (and the money to prep) and test taking skills. Not at all the same as intellect.

Actually you’re dead wrong. Standardized tests are an excellent predictor of academic successs. And as much as you’d like to believe that prepping can dramatically move the needle, studies have show that it has minimal impact.

No, good grades are better predictor of academic success. Test scores just aren't that imortant, nor are they predictive.

That's ridiculous. Some schools are so easy -- the local HS allows retakes on tests; DC's private never allows that. Maybe the score on AP exams is a good indicator, but not the grade. Can be very subjective and standards vary widely from school to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AA is a small price to pay for hundred years of slavery and injustice. No societal harm in preferential treatment for the greater good. The one who lost out in Harvard can go to Yale, or Princeton, or Stanford. The minority, on the other hand, with significantly lower stats, might be losing out in the once in a life lottery. We can use more diverse neurosurgeons and rocket scientists.

Can't wait for that neurosurgeon with significantly lower stats to operate on you

The EEO neurosurgeon will not be operating on you. S/he will be lording over non-EEO neurosurgeons who'll be doing all the heavy lifting. The EEO neurosurgeons are needed, not as grunts, but as the brains behind corporations and hospitals.

Looks like you do need some brain surgery.. to fix your pipe dream problem.

If EEO neurosurgeons are really that good, they will already be doing all the stuff you are talking about. Talent always bubbles to the top. No one is going to make them the puppet master because they are EEO.

Affirmative Action in college is only the first step. Once you have a Harvard grad, how you gonna keep her or him down? Are you saying an African American Harvard graduate cannot lord over 2nd and 3rd rate college grads?

[Anonymous]

Just to give you an example of what Harvard (and the other Ivies, Duke, etc.) do with "underrepresented" kids, here's a Harvard 2022 who was bragging on College Confidential all last year:

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/2021582-chance-me-for-ivy.html

His stats are good not great and he still got into EVERY top 20 except for Stanford. And he was raised in Kenya then moved to Texas, so it's not as if his family was impacted by American slavery or Jim Crow era. I'm unsure the justification for students like this getting into any school they want. The Ivies and Duke most certainly rejected 1000s of kids last year FAR more impressive than him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

AA is a small price to pay for hundred years of slavery and injustice. No societal harm in preferential treatment for the greater good. The one who lost out in Harvard can go to Yale, or Princeton, or Stanford. The minority, on the other hand, with significantly lower stats, might be losing out in the once in a life lottery. We can use more diverse neurosurgeons and rocket scientists.

That would be fine if it were actually true. International blacks steal most of the spots from multi-gen American blacks. And the multi-gen American blacks at top 20s are overwhelmingly UMC if not rich with doctor or lawyer parents from top publics or privates. It's such a farce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

AA is a small price to pay for hundred years of slavery and injustice. No societal harm in preferential treatment for the greater good. The one who lost out in Harvard can go to Yale, or Princeton, or Stanford. The minority, on the other hand, with significantly lower stats, might be losing out in the once in a life lottery. We can use more diverse neurosurgeons and rocket scientists.

That would be fine if it were actually true. International blacks steal most of the spots from multi-gen American blacks. And the multi-gen American blacks at top 20s are overwhelmingly UMC if not rich with doctor or lawyer parents from top publics or privates. It's such a farce.

Whatever it takes. Doesn’t matter international or domestic. Stats is stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to give you an example of what Harvard (and the other Ivies, Duke, etc.) do with "underrepresented" kids, here's a Harvard 2022 who was bragging on College Confidential all last year:

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/2021582-chance-me-for-ivy.html

His stats are good not great and he still got into EVERY top 20 except for Stanford. And he was raised in Kenya then moved to Texas, so it's not as if his family was impacted by American slavery or Jim Crow era. I'm unsure the justification for students like this getting into any school they want. The Ivies and Duke most certainly rejected 1000s of kids last year FAR more impressive than him.[/quot

For a low income immigrant to score that high is amazing. He was one in a million, 99.9 percentile. He should have been treated as such. And once in, there are legal mechanisms such as employment EEO laws in place to fast tract him to higher places. We need more people of color as brains behind corporations, universities, and politics to lead the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That would be fine if it were actually true. International blacks steal most of the spots from multi-gen American blacks. And the multi-gen American blacks at top 20s are overwhelmingly UMC if not rich with doctor or lawyer parents from top publics or privates. It's such a farce.

I love this talk of "stealing spots"

Like admissions offices can't accept anyone they damn well please and can't tell one kid from another except for skin color.

You people ever see a college application? You talk like it's a page of pantone colors with checkboxes under it and nothing else.

Y'all need help.