SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you not understanding why Harvard was discriminating against Asians, let me enlighten you:

When comparing applicants with the same level of academic achievement, Asians always had the worst personality scores of any group. The SFFA constructed an index based on Harvard’s academic rating and used it to divide applicants into 10 evenly-sized groups (deciles) based on the strength of their academic performance. Within each of the 10 academic deciles, Asians had the lowest personality scores across all of the racial groups. A perfect 10 for 10.

Within each racial group, high academic performance strongly predicted high personality ratings, but Asians had the lowest average personality rating even though they had the highest average academic rating.

In contrast, Harvard alumni rated Asians similar to whites on personality and better, on average, than Latinos and blacks. But it is the admissions office, not alumni, that ultimately determines Harvard’s personality ratings.

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

In what world is this ok?

+1 Harvard was systematically biased against Asians. I don't know how you look at the data and conclude otherwise.

+1

This whole Asians have a bad personality thing always disturbed me.

It’s so statistically awful.

The point is that Harvard's own alum who actually met the applicants scored the Asian applications just fine on "personality" but that the admissions office just ignored/overrode it. Not only are they blatantly discriminating against Asians, they are actually perpetuating racial stereotypes by making up a "personality" score for the sole purpose of failing Asians in this category. This is SO important because these are the very people calling others racist for calling them out on their discrimination. I don't even know how they sleep at night.

[Anonymous]

MLK is smiling today... content of character always outweighs the color of the skin. Thank you SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol Clarence Thomas ruling against affirmative action.

He use principle rather than personal benefit.

Kudos!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you not understanding why Harvard was discriminating against Asians, let me enlighten you:

When comparing applicants with the same level of academic achievement, Asians always had the worst personality scores of any group. The SFFA constructed an index based on Harvard’s academic rating and used it to divide applicants into 10 evenly-sized groups (deciles) based on the strength of their academic performance. Within each of the 10 academic deciles, Asians had the lowest personality scores across all of the racial groups. A perfect 10 for 10.

Within each racial group, high academic performance strongly predicted high personality ratings, but Asians had the lowest average personality rating even though they had the highest average academic rating.

In contrast, Harvard alumni rated Asians similar to whites on personality and better, on average, than Latinos and blacks. But it is the admissions office, not alumni, that ultimately determines Harvard’s personality ratings.

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

In what world is this ok?

+1 Harvard was systematically biased against Asians. I don't know how you look at the data and conclude otherwise.

+1

This whole Asians have a bad personality thing always disturbed me.

It’s so statistically awful.

I'm appalled that any students are rated on "personality," whatever that is. What a subjective and meaningless measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

Test scores magnify privilege. They do not measure intelligence or potential or leadership or anything more than they measure whether kids have spent their lives preparing to take the tests.

You wish so very much that were true.

There are numerous studies about this. Test scores are highly correlated to household income.

Correlation is not causation.

Privilege is privilege. Advantage is advantage. Income, privilege, prep schools, tutors, are all test prep advantages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

Test scores magnify privilege. They do not measure intelligence or potential or leadership or anything more than they measure whether kids have spent their lives preparing to take the tests.

You wish so very much that were true.

There are numerous studies about this. Test scores are highly correlated to household income.

PP here. Yes, but that previous statement was WAY too broad. I've tested kids in low income areas -- they may have done poorly on the verbal portions due to lack of exposure, but many of the truly gifted ones aced the nonverbal parts. Just like some kids have astonishing athletic abilities, so some kids have academic intelligence. Some of the kids in my family could practice baseball, basketball, and soccer all day long every day...and guess what? They're just not as coordinated as star athletes. Same with music, art, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No idea, but the above quote seems pretty clear that they can't employ affirmative action through other means. I imagine though the liability/litigation factor and potential for having to disclose its admissions data, it will have to lead to some changes. Even if they use socioeconomic data or something else, if the end result is the same, then I'm sure they'll be liable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank God my Lao son will be evaluated now based on his merits and not because he is thrown into some ludicrously broad category they consists of 'Asians'. The only way to even have had a chance at Harvard prior to this ruling would have been to score extra personality points for him since he would have been judged the hardest. He could have done a side rapping career or done stand up comedy rather than study math just to show Harvard he can keep it real with his personality or can be funny rather than be good at math.

Do know that not everyone can go to Harvard regardless of affirmative action.

+1. Almost every qualified student gets rejected from Harvard regardless of race.

That may be true, but at least it can now be based primarily on merit, which anyone has control over, and not ridiculous racial stereotypes for character and ethnicity, which no one can control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you not understanding why Harvard was discriminating against Asians, let me enlighten you:

When comparing applicants with the same level of academic achievement, Asians always had the worst personality scores of any group. The SFFA constructed an index based on Harvard’s academic rating and used it to divide applicants into 10 evenly-sized groups (deciles) based on the strength of their academic performance. Within each of the 10 academic deciles, Asians had the lowest personality scores across all of the racial groups. A perfect 10 for 10.

Within each racial group, high academic performance strongly predicted high personality ratings, but Asians had the lowest average personality rating even though they had the highest average academic rating.

In contrast, Harvard alumni rated Asians similar to whites on personality and better, on average, than Latinos and blacks. But it is the admissions office, not alumni, that ultimately determines Harvard’s personality ratings.

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

In what world is this ok?

+1 Harvard was systematically biased against Asians. I don't know how you look at the data and conclude otherwise.

+1

This whole Asians have a bad personality thing always disturbed me.

It’s so statistically awful.

I'm appalled that any students are rated on "personality," whatever that is. What a subjective and meaningless measure.

“Leadership” is a white male preference for weighting the sports and other activities of bros who aren’t elite athletes deserving the heavier recruited athlete preference. Division III colleges that don’t have athletic scholarships often give “leadership” scholarships to their athletes.

Personality, leadership, essays, recommendations, etc. are necessary to smuggle some interesting people into the class and not just the dull drudges and nerds with high math scores.

[Anonymous]

Biden: "Biden slams SCOTUS affirmative action ruling, says it cannot be ‘the last word’"

-actually Mr. President in case you're not aware the supreme court is the "last word".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank God my Lao son will be evaluated now based on his merits and not because he is thrown into some ludicrously broad category they consists of 'Asians'. The only way to even have had a chance at Harvard prior to this ruling would have been to score extra personality points for him since he would have been judged the hardest. He could have done a side rapping career or done stand up comedy rather than study math just to show Harvard he can keep it real with his personality or can be funny rather than be good at math.

Do know that not everyone can go to Harvard regardless of affirmative action.

+1. Almost every qualified student gets rejected from Harvard regardless of race.

That may be true, but at least it can now be based primarily on merit, which anyone has control over, and not ridiculous racial stereotypes for character and ethnicity, which no one can control.

Well, that's not really true and I know because my kids are huge beneficiaries of a wealthy, two-parent household with undergraduate/graduate degrees from Ivy League institutions. It's easy to acknowledge "merit" without recognizing vastly different starting positions. But hey, my kids benefit from this so why should I complain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank God my Lao son will be evaluated now based on his merits and not because he is thrown into some ludicrously broad category they consists of 'Asians'. The only way to even have had a chance at Harvard prior to this ruling would have been to score extra personality points for him since he would have been judged the hardest. He could have done a side rapping career or done stand up comedy rather than study math just to show Harvard he can keep it real with his personality or can be funny rather than be good at math.

Do know that not everyone can go to Harvard regardless of affirmative action.

+1. Almost every qualified student gets rejected from Harvard regardless of race.

That may be true, but at least it can now be based primarily on merit, which anyone has control over, and not ridiculous racial stereotypes for character and ethnicity, which no one can control.

There is almost no difference between half of those admitted, those wait-listed, and a quarter of those denied now, and after this there still will be almost no difference between them. Higher test scores alone is not merit, not determinative, and never should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist DCUMers claiming Asians students are basically all the same and all have affluence and tutoring when there are massive differences between people of South East Asian decent vs those of North East and East Asian descent. SE Asians are way more impoverished, yet they get lumped in with the stupidly broad category of 'Asian'. It's almost as if a continent with 3+ billion people is not monolithic and descendants from those areas in our country have vastly different experiences.

Good for Asians for standing up for their rights to not be judged based on their race or ridiculously offensive racial stereotypes that are used to pre-emptiveky judge their character and personality by admissions staff. It's so insane we have to argue over this. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, but affirmative action led us down the path of using race based discrimination and ridiculous personality stereotypes of Asians to help people reject them from.admisisons and jobs just so they could reach a desired quota.

72% of Asians hold college degrees. Tell me where the discrimination is?!

Still waiting for an answer. Where is the discrimination?

Harvard applied much higher admissions standards to Asian applicants, with the lowest admission rates despite having the highest scores. Blacks, by contrast, have the lowest scores and GPAs but the highest admission rates among races. If that is not discrimination, then there is no such thing as discrimination.

How will this be policed and disclosed going forward? Can't Harvard just use some other fig leaf to get to the same result?

Absolutely. If you think diversity at Harvard is fig leaf and Harvard thinks it is important, why do you want to attend? You do not even agree with their educational mission.

The decision has a dumptruck sized loophole written right into it. The court says that: "Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Colleges will just use the applicant essays to do this. That will further privilege wealthy minorities who know how to play this game, and disadvantage poor ones who don't.

It appears elsewhere in the ruling, "But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.” I don't think that loophole is that big. " [W]hat can
not be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Is SCOTUS going to sit in the Harvard admissions office to police whether the admissions office is making the decision based only on race, or instead based on how their race is tried to their character or ability to contribute?

No, but you can bet every bulldozer parent will now litigate every rejection from every elite school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank God my Lao son will be evaluated now based on his merits and not because he is thrown into some ludicrously broad category they consists of 'Asians'. The only way to even have had a chance at Harvard prior to this ruling would have been to score extra personality points for him since he would have been judged the hardest. He could have done a side rapping career or done stand up comedy rather than study math just to show Harvard he can keep it real with his personality or can be funny rather than be good at math.

Do know that not everyone can go to Harvard regardless of affirmative action.

+1. Almost every qualified student gets rejected from Harvard regardless of race.

That may be true, but at least it can now be based primarily on merit, which anyone has control over, and not ridiculous racial stereotypes for character and ethnicity, which no one can control.

Well, that's not really true and I know because my kids are huge beneficiaries of a wealthy, two-parent household with undergraduate/graduate degrees from Ivy League institutions. It's easy to acknowledge "merit" without recognizing vastly different starting positions. But hey, my kids benefit from this so why should I complain?

+1

Let me hear PP’s opinions on the merit of all of the legacies admitted to HYP. Mommy and Daddy’s old money and name really equals merit to me! Utter nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Good. Applications should get a number and when the admissions people look they don’t see a name, gender or race. The only one who knows is the person submitting the application They can anonymize the process.

Applications should be submitted by anyone who wants, but admissions should be blind only accepting the best students.

If schools collect tax money they should be not allowed to favor one group over another