Accreditors are considering dropping diversity requirements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP who just read back through this thread. You are a piece of work. You realize the people (implied because as PP pointed out, you won't say it outright) you complain as receiving "favoritism " are underrepresented on these campuses.Have you set foot on an Ivy League campus? They are largely white and Asian.

This is what blows me. Most of these institutions are majority white and asian, and there's not that much visual diversity (obviously people can be one race and look another). It seems strange to me that people laser focus in on such matters, but DD isn't interested in an elite school, so the discussion doesn't really apply to our family. The move towards socioeconomic diversity is nice, though eventually people will go back to complaining about people of color in higher ed, because they're disproportionately more likely to be from poor backgrounds.

Because too many white people lied about their race in college application. On the paper, a given Ivy may have 20% Hispanics. But in reality it could be less than 5%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

It has always been nearly impossible for poor students to compete with wealthy students and compete at the highest level. It is a rare talent that can overcome large wealth differences.

It is NOT a rare talent that can overcome racial disparity. Harvard is about 15%black. Without preferences it would be 6-8% black. This is not nothing but by pushing the rope to 15% you get a situation where Harvard is cannibalizing the Columbias of the world to achieve that 15% and the least qualified black students struggle a little bit because Harvard really isn't significantly more difficult than Columbia. But then Columbia has to cannibalize the Cornells of the world and by the time Cornell tries to achieve its diversity goals it is getting URM students that would have otherwise gone to USC and Northeastern and now the differences are large enough that almost none of the URM students are among the top students and are grossly over-represented among the worst performing students. If each of these schools accepted based on merit, they would all have somewhere between 6-8% black and 8-10% hispanic with the difference going pretty evenly to asians and whites.

This isn't RWNJs saying that this is how the numbers would shake out based on race blaind admissions standards. This is Harvard and the amicus briefs saying this is how the numbers would shake out without explicit racial preferences like affimative action.

Wrong. These schools would be much more asian than White. Asian Americans are the superiors in the academic space, and white students are only kept in stable numbers because of unmeritocratic bs like extracurricular activities. Across the board, the best students are asian, rarely white european, and even more rarely white american.

The Asians that come to America are the most ambitious and dedicated families, academically successful, and they all seem to take the same route - math, science, medicine. They are laser focused on it. Out of the billions of Asians the best and brightest come here and other western countries for the opportunities.

Historically they have either been economic refugees or actual refugees.
E.g. before ~1988 the korean immigrants were largely economic refugees from a region of korea that was oppressed by the korean military dictatorship.
Vietnamese are actual refugees from the war.
But yes, we are getting the best and brightest from places like India and the Phillipines.
I think the Chinese immigrants are split 50/50.
Most of these people are not coming here because things are so wonderful back home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANY race, dumbass! Stop being deliberately obtuse and answer the question.
DP

He is basically saying that the only reason you dislike diversity is because it helps blacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a totally ridiculous answer. You’re implying that diverse students couldn’t possibly be accepted on their own merit and instead have to be chosen due to their race. This is exactly why DEI needs to be a thing of the past.
DP

Nobody believes that blacks are incapable of excelling more than the woke left.

[Anonymous]

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

This.

[Anonymous]

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

They don't think you can get in without the preference.

They've been striving for racial parity for so long without being able to achieve it that they no longer believe you are capable of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

EXACTLY.

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

How do you know?
Are you sure they aren't taking it easy on you with a lighter more manageable workload so that you can succeed and they can have a successful female to point to?
Maybe they are playing up your wins and playing down your losses?
Maybe you are getting special attention that your male counterparts are not getting because you are a unicorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

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

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

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

They don’t like having to actually think.

Hmmm interesting self-reflection from you …

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

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

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

You are very stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANY race, dumbass! Stop being deliberately obtuse and answer the question.
DP

He is basically saying that the only reason you dislike diversity is because it helps blacks.

+1

Anti-black racism is real.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

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

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

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

They don’t like having to actually think.

Hmmm interesting self-reflection from you …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No you don’t want to know anything. You just wanted the status quo’s which isn’t happening. Too bad. Cry me a river.

? Make a point, Jesus.

You’re too dumb to see the point. It’s like dumb students keeep asking teachers to explain a simple concept again and again. Now I get your hatred towards meritocracy.

Your point has been made. You don't have anything to say, but you hate black people. We get it, but that isn't exactly an indictment of anything but your personal racism. Now, are you ready to talk about what a meritocratic system looks like or will you cower again with some other nonsensical personal insult that won't carry the conversation. You've run away every time I've basically asked you to explain your perspective.

DP

When you make baseless accusations of racism in 2025, you are not only 5 years too late but you are basiaclly just admitting you have no argument other than accusations of racism.
Nobody cares about being called a racist anymore because you guys cried wolf for so long.

The repeat poster here went on some utterly insane rants that were reported and deleted. I do not care to repeat them here but they would have fit in perfectly well on an Stormfront. I find it a bit frustrating that they and you then say all of our accusations of racism are baseless. This person basically declared the intellectual superiority of one race!

If you are saying stormfront, then I am assuming white supremacist.
White supremacy in academic achievement is pretty hard to reconcile with the facts.

But assuming that blacks are incapable of academic achievement without the largesse of their white allies is pretty fkn demeaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not buying this “DP” crap.

So you think that everyone that disagrees with you is actually just one person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good god, you idiots think standardized tests mean that much? Ok, fine. Let’s just award Nobel prizes based on test scores then. We can also elect presidents this way. And award research grants, writing contracts, etc. Since a multiple choice exam can reveal such grand truths about a person’s intellectual and creative capabilities to achieve things in real life, using standardized test for everything would sure save a lot of effort thought.

The only problem is that standardized tests can’t do all that.

This is what they do in almost every other country because standardized test results are that fkn reliable.

You'd have to ratchet up[ the difficulty level so everyone doesn't get a top score

Almost all nobel prize winners have great standardized test scores. Test scores are very good predictors of published research and citation frequency.

Standardized test scores are great predictors of how many patents you will have and how far you will advance in your career.

Right now I would love a president with a good SAT score. I would take a random 45-65 year old that got a 1550+ (or equivalent) right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good god, you idiots think standardized tests mean that much? Ok, fine. Let’s just award Nobel prizes based on test scores then. We can also elect presidents this way. And award research grants, writing contracts, etc. Since a multiple choice exam can reveal such grand truths about a person’s intellectual and creative capabilities to achieve things in real life, using standardized test for everything would sure save a lot of effort thought.

The only problem is that standardized tests can’t do all that.

This is what they do in almost every other country because standardized test results are that fkn reliable.

You'd have to ratchet up[ the difficulty level so everyone doesn't get a top score

Almost all nobel prize winners have great standardized test scores. Test scores are very good predictors of published research and citation frequency.

Standardized test scores are great predictors of how many patents you will have and how far you will advance in your career.

Right now I would love a president with a good SAT score. I would take a random 45-65 year old that got a 1550+ (or equivalent) right now.

This. Two things are true at the same time: a) standardized tests have well known problems, b) they are nevertheless extremely predictive of a great many things, including academic achievement, as well as being cheaper, more efficient and less biased than most alternatives.

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

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

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your kid would miss that by about 50% so I’m not sure why you prefer such a system.

If my kid is only smart enough to get into state school, that's fine. The top schools should adhere to deeply rigorous examination. I don't believe the colleges are meritocratic until they're 70-90% asian.

You sure have a crazy limited view of merit and talent. Do you want us only to have engineering schools in the US? Do you think the great writers and poets of the century all scored in the top 0.01% of students on standardized exams?

Most of them, were probably top 1%.

Hahahahaha. Such a simplistic, dumbass view of talent.

It takes a while for some people to wrap their minds around this concept but g is a thing and it affects your ability to write well. I doubt there are many Pulitzer prize winners of mediocre intellect

It is mostly mediocre people with mediocre kids that like to think that their kid is really talented but it just doesn't show up on any objective measurement.

The future will not be kind to your progeny. AI will be an IQ multiplier and it will only exacerbate the current disparities caused by differences in IQ. It will make the computer revolution look like a windows upgrade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that quite often, race and neighborhood and/or socioeconomic status go hand-in-hand. So when it looks like a school is making a preference based on race, they are actually making a preference based on geography or income.

For example, the UCs have, for a long time, had policies against affirmative action. Yet, they are still accused of admitting based on race. You will often see white or Asian parents upset that their child with a 4.8 GPA and 12 AP classes was not admitted, while a black or Latino student with a lower (but still within the qualifying range for UC) GPA and fewer APs was admitted. They will claim racial discrimination against their child. They argue that if admissions had been merit-based, their kid would have gotten in ahead of the other student with lower GPA and fewer APs. I can understand the frustration. I felt it myself, for my kid.

But here’s another way to look at it: when it comes to public universities, they should ideally be available to anyone within the state that meets the school’s admission criteria. Their goal is to educate the tax-paying public. Obviously there aren’t nearly enough seats to take everyone who qualifies, so admissions reps have to choose: who deserves admission? Who is to say that a student from a wealthy suburb, whose parents could pay for tutors, enrichment, test prep, and college counselors (therefore boosting the kid’s GPA to 4.8) deserves the spot more than a kid from a poor neighborhood whose public school only offered a few APs, had run down facilities, who never could afford a tutor, but also studied hard, avoided the negative peer influences, and despite not having college-educated parents or access to resources still managed to get a 3.8UW and 4.0W completely on their own? Shouldn’t a student with that amount of drive deserve a spot at their state’s flagship school, even if they are not (based on stats alone) as “meritorious” as someone who was rejected? Especially if the university already accepted many students from the rejected student’s school or community.

Private schools, on the other hand, don’t owe the public taxpayer anything, but they likely see the benefits of admitting a socioeconomically and geographically diverse class, as long as a certain threshold (ability to do the work) is met. I don’t think anyone is arguing that incapable students should be admitted.

The preferences based on geography and income really kicked in after they were no longer allowed to admit based on race. That's why people suspect shenanigans.

Nobody is excluded from a state college in california. Is everyone entiled to a shot at berkeley and UCLA? Why not Merced or Calstate Riverside?

Private schools (as we have seen) relies heavily on government funding. So, they don't get to racially discriminate either unless they are willing to forego all that government funding.