White House Asks Colleges to Sign Sweeping Agreement

[Anonymous]

It’s ok. Uva will negotiate and sign. They have plenty of money. And cap the number of students. It helps them boost its ranking too. Plus they are looking for a new president. They will negotiate a few particulars and settle on the framework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s long past time for a needed shake of the education industrial complex. Glad to see it.

It is not really broken, is it?
I guess if you are MAGA, you want all of us to be electricians and plumbers, so you want to demolish the "education industrial complex."

[Anonymous]

Everyone excited about a tuition freeze should think again. These schools will add or greatly increase “fees” and boarding. Get ready for $10k fees and $30k room and board.

[Anonymous]

At the very least, wouldn’t the schools want to know how much extra $$$s will flow to them specifically?

I mean, isn’t the promise of tons of $$$s the only reason anyone would sign? Wouldn’t you also by default want a guarantee that they won’t give this offer to lots of schools (which by default means the $$$s flowing to you will be diluted)?

[Anonymous]

I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

That may be the case with Harvard, but it is not the general case across America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

+100

[Anonymous]

https://standstrongbrown.org/

[Anonymous]

U penn announced they are not signing. I will be surprised if anyone does. It’s ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone excited about a tuition freeze should think again. These schools will add or greatly increase “fees” and boarding. Get ready for $10k fees and $30k room and board.

exactly, it won't actually save families money long-term as there will be loopholes. it's "tuition freeze" something he's trying to throw in to distract from his government overreach into free speech and expression. it's sinister how his government wants to control everything we think, learn, do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

That may be the case with Harvard, but it is not the general case across America.

Fryer’s research did not say that. It said that the Black families had income levels higher than the typical Black family, but that does not at all mean that they had income levels higher than than whites. This is a manipulated stat used to support a common MAGA talking point.

PP was spot on with their breakdown of why we need DEI policies. The people against it are the same ones who don’t want to teach the history of slavery because it is no longer relevant in their mind — even though millions are still feeling the long term consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U penn announced they are not signing. I will be surprised if anyone does. It’s ridiculous.

Good for Penn! I read that one of their board members (don’t know if former or current) drafted the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

Not what the research said per my other post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U penn announced they are not signing. I will be surprised if anyone does. It’s ridiculous.

Texas will probably sign, but it is ridiculous.