Johns Hopkins releases profile of recent class that was admitted in 2025, big shifts post affirmative action

[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:I do wonder how this will change students' applications in the future.

Asian students are definitely deserving of these seats, but it's just true that a high concentration of Asians changes the campus culture. Asian students tend to intensify the academic environment but are more introverted and aren't as involved in sports or parties. This fundamentally alters the college experience.

If the entire T20 becomes plurality Asian, my general guess is that many affluent white families will stop valuing these schools so much because they tend to really care about the overall "college experience." Far more white kids are going to opt for the SEC or B10 experience over the private T20s.

Doubtful. Whites haven't stopped applying to and going to the UCs as a result of Asian invasion

Actually in CA they have. If you look at the strong privates in CA (which is where affluent white kids go) you will see far lower numbers attending top UCs. They are opting for OOS privates because of the crazy admissions process, crowded campuses and poor housing situation. Middle class white kids are still attending the UCs.

False. The real reason is the top privates do horrendously in UC admissions.

You likely don't even know this exists:

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/admissions-source-school

UC enrollment has been going up for several top privates like Nueva, Menlo, Harker. Admissions is low however.

PP: I know that material well, extremely well in fact. I also know the A-G requirements, ninth grade exclusion (not at SLO), ELC implications (local and state), etc. whatever you would like to talk about. I can tell you exactly why Stanley Zhong was shut out as well...hint, he had a terrible transcript for UC requirements.

I also know that your hypothesis is totally incorrect. I also know that multiple large privates in the Bay Area actually suggest to kids that they not apply to the top UCs unless they actually want to attend because the number of slots they end up with is pretty consistent or fixed depending on your POV. So top kids getting slots that won't yield hurts others at the school who would yield.

Why do you think admissions are low? The top kids generally aren't applying unless they are Asian. They are choosing top privates instead though a few will go for other subjects. Also, many of the Asian kids from the schools that you mention go top Private as well. The UCs are far more interesting to Asian Public school kids in the Bay Area.

Show me Stanley’s transcript. why was it “bad for UCs” when he had a top gpa

HIs transcript is in the pleading appendix, go look it up. Top GPA is meaningless somewhere like Gunn, the school is full of top GPA kids. He barely covered his A-G requirements, his covering classes outside of of Math often lacked rigor (Honors vs AP from a school like Paly is the "kiss of death" for a top UC) and his load wasn't balanced.

He either:
1. Got terrible advice from the counselors which given it was Gunn that he went to.
2. His family ignored the counselors advice believing that peak test scores were actually all that really mattered.

His application wasn't aligned to UC (or most elite) admissions at all. Given the two schools that he did get into there were schools willing to see his CS potential and overlook the rest of the deficiencies but that isn't generally a winning bet. His case has zero chance of success.

+1 His case has zero chance. His GPA, as reported by his parents, isn't the UC calculation. UC's only look at 10th and 11th year grades, Stanley got a B in 10th grade, that right there puts him below at least 30 kids in his own high school and literally 100's from the local area public and private high schools. Plus as the prior poster points out he didn't have max rigor in all subjects as required.

https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/157820.pdf

His GPA was a 3.97 UW and 4.583 weighted. This was top 1% in his class. You all have to be clueless jokers.

That is not his UC GPA, and he was top 9% percent of his class, not top 1% for the UC's. Cal and UCLA admitted several of his higher ranked high school peers.

Incorrect. He was top 9% according to ELC but ELCs only state whether you are top 9% of your class. Not any higher. So he likely was top 1% with that gpa.

Yes, he was top 9% from his high school by UC calculation (that is literally dozens of kids at Gunn). That guaranteed him a spot at UC Merced.
He was not the valedictorian etc. that B pulls him into the lower portion of the 9% cohort. He got passed over by other, higher placed Asians

Figures you dont know what you’re talking about

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1696538432/pausdorg/vkkgz0nal1ardiyajxr6/gunnprofile2023-202410-5-23.pdf

Gunn’s top gpa was a 4.522 weighted this past year. Stanley’s weighted was a 4.58. It’s inconceivable he was bottom of top 9%. More likely he was top of his class

Again, he was top 9% by UC, but not the top of that of that group. Stop looking at his weighted GPA on a transcript that a) using 9th/12th grade which UC"s don't and b) doesn't cap the impact of AP's (UC's only give weighting to a maximum of 8 classes).

take a look at the placement.

https://gunn.pausd.org/campus-life/college-career-center/college-matriculation-summary

more than 10% of the class (43 to 45 people) go to top 20 colleges - some far more selective than Cal instate.

Stanley like got rejected due to what i see as lackluster essays. Not due to his uc gpa at all

But not because he is Asian . . .

Maybe, maybe not. I say we drown them in litigation until they stop trying to create racially diverse calsses.

[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:I do wonder how this will change students' applications in the future.

Asian students are definitely deserving of these seats, but it's just true that a high concentration of Asians changes the campus culture. Asian students tend to intensify the academic environment but are more introverted and aren't as involved in sports or parties. This fundamentally alters the college experience.

If the entire T20 becomes plurality Asian, my general guess is that many affluent white families will stop valuing these schools so much because they tend to really care about the overall "college experience." Far more white kids are going to opt for the SEC or B10 experience over the private T20s.

Doubtful. Whites haven't stopped applying to and going to the UCs as a result of Asian invasion

Actually in CA they have. If you look at the strong privates in CA (which is where affluent white kids go) you will see far lower numbers attending top UCs. They are opting for OOS privates because of the crazy admissions process, crowded campuses and poor housing situation. Middle class white kids are still attending the UCs.

False. The real reason is the top privates do horrendously in UC admissions.

You likely don't even know this exists:

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/admissions-source-school

UC enrollment has been going up for several top privates like Nueva, Menlo, Harker. Admissions is low however.

PP: I know that material well, extremely well in fact. I also know the A-G requirements, ninth grade exclusion (not at SLO), ELC implications (local and state), etc. whatever you would like to talk about. I can tell you exactly why Stanley Zhong was shut out as well...hint, he had a terrible transcript for UC requirements.

I also know that your hypothesis is totally incorrect. I also know that multiple large privates in the Bay Area actually suggest to kids that they not apply to the top UCs unless they actually want to attend because the number of slots they end up with is pretty consistent or fixed depending on your POV. So top kids getting slots that won't yield hurts others at the school who would yield.

Why do you think admissions are low? The top kids generally aren't applying unless they are Asian. They are choosing top privates instead though a few will go for other subjects. Also, many of the Asian kids from the schools that you mention go top Private as well. The UCs are far more interesting to Asian Public school kids in the Bay Area.

Show me Stanley’s transcript. why was it “bad for UCs” when he had a top gpa

HIs transcript is in the pleading appendix, go look it up. Top GPA is meaningless somewhere like Gunn, the school is full of top GPA kids. He barely covered his A-G requirements, his covering classes outside of of Math often lacked rigor (Honors vs AP from a school like Paly is the "kiss of death" for a top UC) and his load wasn't balanced.

He either:
1. Got terrible advice from the counselors which given it was Gunn that he went to.
2. His family ignored the counselors advice believing that peak test scores were actually all that really mattered.

His application wasn't aligned to UC (or most elite) admissions at all. Given the two schools that he did get into there were schools willing to see his CS potential and overlook the rest of the deficiencies but that isn't generally a winning bet. His case has zero chance of success.

+1 His case has zero chance. His GPA, as reported by his parents, isn't the UC calculation. UC's only look at 10th and 11th year grades, Stanley got a B in 10th grade, that right there puts him below at least 30 kids in his own high school and literally 100's from the local area public and private high schools. Plus as the prior poster points out he didn't have max rigor in all subjects as required.

https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/157820.pdf

His GPA was a 3.97 UW and 4.583 weighted. This was top 1% in his class. You all have to be clueless jokers.

That is not his UC GPA, and he was top 9% percent of his class, not top 1% for the UC's. Cal and UCLA admitted several of his higher ranked high school peers.

Incorrect. He was top 9% according to ELC but ELCs only state whether you are top 9% of your class. Not any higher. So he likely was top 1% with that gpa.

Yes, he was top 9% from his high school by UC calculation (that is literally dozens of kids at Gunn). That guaranteed him a spot at UC Merced.
He was not the valedictorian etc. that B pulls him into the lower portion of the 9% cohort. He got passed over by other, higher placed Asians

Figures you dont know what you’re talking about

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1696538432/pausdorg/vkkgz0nal1ardiyajxr6/gunnprofile2023-202410-5-23.pdf

Gunn’s top gpa was a 4.522 weighted this past year. Stanley’s weighted was a 4.58. It’s inconceivable he was bottom of top 9%. More likely he was top of his class

Again, he was top 9% by UC, but not the top of that of that group. Stop looking at his weighted GPA on a transcript that a) using 9th/12th grade which UC"s don't and b) doesn't cap the impact of AP's (UC's only give weighting to a maximum of 8 classes).

take a look at the placement.

https://gunn.pausd.org/campus-life/college-career-center/college-matriculation-summary

more than 10% of the class (43 to 45 people) go to top 20 colleges - some far more selective than Cal instate.

Stanley like got rejected due to what i see as lackluster essays. Not due to his uc gpa at all

But not because he is Asian . . .

no since UCs are race agnostic

No they're not. They try to achieve racial diversity, just not directly.

[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:I do wonder how this will change students' applications in the future.

Asian students are definitely deserving of these seats, but it's just true that a high concentration of Asians changes the campus culture. Asian students tend to intensify the academic environment but are more introverted and aren't as involved in sports or parties. This fundamentally alters the college experience.

If the entire T20 becomes plurality Asian, my general guess is that many affluent white families will stop valuing these schools so much because they tend to really care about the overall "college experience." Far more white kids are going to opt for the SEC or B10 experience over the private T20s.

Doubtful. Whites haven't stopped applying to and going to the UCs as a result of Asian invasion

Actually in CA they have. If you look at the strong privates in CA (which is where affluent white kids go) you will see far lower numbers attending top UCs. They are opting for OOS privates because of the crazy admissions process, crowded campuses and poor housing situation. Middle class white kids are still attending the UCs.

False. The real reason is the top privates do horrendously in UC admissions.

You likely don't even know this exists:

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/admissions-source-school

UC enrollment has been going up for several top privates like Nueva, Menlo, Harker. Admissions is low however.

PP: I know that material well, extremely well in fact. I also know the A-G requirements, ninth grade exclusion (not at SLO), ELC implications (local and state), etc. whatever you would like to talk about. I can tell you exactly why Stanley Zhong was shut out as well...hint, he had a terrible transcript for UC requirements.

I also know that your hypothesis is totally incorrect. I also know that multiple large privates in the Bay Area actually suggest to kids that they not apply to the top UCs unless they actually want to attend because the number of slots they end up with is pretty consistent or fixed depending on your POV. So top kids getting slots that won't yield hurts others at the school who would yield.

Why do you think admissions are low? The top kids generally aren't applying unless they are Asian. They are choosing top privates instead though a few will go for other subjects. Also, many of the Asian kids from the schools that you mention go top Private as well. The UCs are far more interesting to Asian Public school kids in the Bay Area.

Show me Stanley’s transcript. why was it “bad for UCs” when he had a top gpa

HIs transcript is in the pleading appendix, go look it up. Top GPA is meaningless somewhere like Gunn, the school is full of top GPA kids. He barely covered his A-G requirements, his covering classes outside of of Math often lacked rigor (Honors vs AP from a school like Paly is the "kiss of death" for a top UC) and his load wasn't balanced.

He either:
1. Got terrible advice from the counselors which given it was Gunn that he went to.
2. His family ignored the counselors advice believing that peak test scores were actually all that really mattered.

His application wasn't aligned to UC (or most elite) admissions at all. Given the two schools that he did get into there were schools willing to see his CS potential and overlook the rest of the deficiencies but that isn't generally a winning bet. His case has zero chance of success.

+1 His case has zero chance. His GPA, as reported by his parents, isn't the UC calculation. UC's only look at 10th and 11th year grades, Stanley got a B in 10th grade, that right there puts him below at least 30 kids in his own high school and literally 100's from the local area public and private high schools. Plus as the prior poster points out he didn't have max rigor in all subjects as required.

https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/157820.pdf

His GPA was a 3.97 UW and 4.583 weighted. This was top 1% in his class. You all have to be clueless jokers.

That is not his UC GPA, and he was top 9% percent of his class, not top 1% for the UC's. Cal and UCLA admitted several of his higher ranked high school peers.

Incorrect. He was top 9% according to ELC but ELCs only state whether you are top 9% of your class. Not any higher. So he likely was top 1% with that gpa.

Yes, he was top 9% from his high school by UC calculation (that is literally dozens of kids at Gunn). That guaranteed him a spot at UC Merced.
He was not the valedictorian etc. that B pulls him into the lower portion of the 9% cohort. He got passed over by other, higher placed Asians

Figures you dont know what you’re talking about

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1696538432/pausdorg/vkkgz0nal1ardiyajxr6/gunnprofile2023-202410-5-23.pdf

Gunn’s top gpa was a 4.522 weighted this past year. Stanley’s weighted was a 4.58. It’s inconceivable he was bottom of top 9%. More likely he was top of his class

Again, he was top 9% by UC, but not the top of that of that group. Stop looking at his weighted GPA on a transcript that a) using 9th/12th grade which UC"s don't and b) doesn't cap the impact of AP's (UC's only give weighting to a maximum of 8 classes).

take a look at the placement.

https://gunn.pausd.org/campus-life/college-career-center/college-matriculation-summary

more than 10% of the class (43 to 45 people) go to top 20 colleges - some far more selective than Cal instate.

Stanley like got rejected due to what i see as lackluster essays. Not due to his uc gpa at all

But not because he is Asian . . .

Maybe, maybe not. I say we drown them in litigation until they stop trying to create racially diverse calsses.

Better to just revoke their tax exempt status and remove all federal funding and research. This is going to happen whenever a Republican is in office because it is one of the few things trump is doing that polls extremely well. Everyone seems to think colleges should not be in the racial discrimination game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is there any proof that Asians actually work harder than other races? They are more resourced than most races for sure.

And why are they more resourced? It is not as if they have benefited from being under colonial rule, is it? It is not as if they get benefit of affirmative action. Well, it has to do with their family structure and the love that their parents have for them. The family prioritizes education and will sacrifice for the education of their children. It is hard for everyone in the family but they endure. Copy that in your own family and you will be successful too. Need to learn to sacrifice for the education of your children.

The proof that they work harder than any other race in education? The proof my dear is in the pudding. Have you heard of the achievement gap? Or do you think that they are intellectually superior to other races?

No, the proof is in the fact that Asian immigrants are privileged. Because of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, highly educated and skilled Asians jump to the front of the line. How else do you explain that 51% of Chinese immigrants come to the United States with an undergraduate degree? Only four percent of people in China are similarly educated. Twenty-six percent of Vietnamese immigrants have a bachelor's degree; only five percent of those back home do. Only 36% of South Koreans have a college education; 56% of Korean immigrants do. Honestly, is it any surprise that educated people would have educated children?

And despite landing on third base in their native country, obviously they don't think hard work and love of scholarship would carry them to home plate. They came to the United States for that:

Like immigrants overall, a majority of Asian immigrants cite better opportunities and a better future for their children as reasons for moving to the U.S., with high shares of immigrants from East and Southeast Asia also citing having more rights or freedoms as a reason. Among Asian immigrants, at least three in four say better economic and job opportunities (86%), educational opportunities (79%), and a better future for their children (75%) are a reason they moved to the U.S. Smaller shares say they came to the U.S. to have more rights or freedoms (66%), to join or accompany family members (51%), or to escape violent or unsafe conditions (34%).

So, please stop with the model minority myth that centers East Asian Confucian emphasis on education as what differentiates Asian immigrants from people whose ancestors came here on slave ships -- especially because those people fought for increased immigration during the Civil Rights Movement.

https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/understanding-the-diversity-in-the-asian-immigrant-experience/
https://items.ssrc.org/from-our-programs/it-takes-more-than-grit-reframing-asian-american-academic-achievement/

What you said is only partially true, emphasis on education is in east Asia culture, more people come over to U.S with higher education background it's because of competition. Plenty of first generation Asian kids get into elite colleges because they less-educated parents emphasize education too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is there any proof that Asians actually work harder than other races? They are more resourced than most races for sure.

And why are they more resourced? It is not as if they have benefited from being under colonial rule, is it? It is not as if they get benefit of affirmative action. Well, it has to do with their family structure and the love that their parents have for them. The family prioritizes education and will sacrifice for the education of their children. It is hard for everyone in the family but they endure. Copy that in your own family and you will be successful too. Need to learn to sacrifice for the education of your children.

The proof that they work harder than any other race in education? The proof my dear is in the pudding. Have you heard of the achievement gap? Or do you think that they are intellectually superior to other races?

No, the proof is in the fact that Asian immigrants are privileged. Because of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, highly educated and skilled Asians jump to the front of the line. How else do you explain that 51% of Chinese immigrants come to the United States with an undergraduate degree? Only four percent of people in China are similarly educated. Twenty-six percent of Vietnamese immigrants have a bachelor's degree; only five percent of those back home do. Only 36% of South Koreans have a college education; 56% of Korean immigrants do. Honestly, is it any surprise that educated people would have educated children?

And despite landing on third base in their native country, obviously they don't think hard work and love of scholarship would carry them to home plate. They came to the United States for that:

Like immigrants overall, a majority of Asian immigrants cite better opportunities and a better future for their children as reasons for moving to the U.S., with high shares of immigrants from East and Southeast Asia also citing having more rights or freedoms as a reason. Among Asian immigrants, at least three in four say better economic and job opportunities (86%), educational opportunities (79%), and a better future for their children (75%) are a reason they moved to the U.S. Smaller shares say they came to the U.S. to have more rights or freedoms (66%), to join or accompany family members (51%), or to escape violent or unsafe conditions (34%).

So, please stop with the model minority myth that centers East Asian Confucian emphasis on education as what differentiates Asian immigrants from people whose ancestors came here on slave ships -- especially because those people fought for increased immigration during the Civil Rights Movement.

https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/understanding-the-diversity-in-the-asian-immigrant-experience/
https://items.ssrc.org/from-our-programs/it-takes-more-than-grit-reframing-asian-american-academic-achievement/

What you said is only partially true, emphasis on education is in east Asia culture, more people come over to U.S with higher education background it's because of competition. Plenty of first generation Asian kids get into elite colleges because they less-educated parents emphasize education too.

What they were saying is mostly untrue.

They cherry-pick data and cite easily debunked articles.

For example, one of the articles make a point of the lack of success of chinese in spain and koreans in japan while ignoring almost every other country in the world where chinese and koreans are outperforming the native population academically. For koreans, japan might be the only country where we see what the author of the article tries to portray as a common occurrence.

The fact of the matter is that some asian groups spend more time studying and consequently have better academic results.

[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:I do wonder how this will change students' applications in the future.

Asian students are definitely deserving of these seats, but it's just true that a high concentration of Asians changes the campus culture. Asian students tend to intensify the academic environment but are more introverted and aren't as involved in sports or parties. This fundamentally alters the college experience.

If the entire T20 becomes plurality Asian, my general guess is that many affluent white families will stop valuing these schools so much because they tend to really care about the overall "college experience." Far more white kids are going to opt for the SEC or B10 experience over the private T20s.

Doubtful. Whites haven't stopped applying to and going to the UCs as a result of Asian invasion

Actually in CA they have. If you look at the strong privates in CA (which is where affluent white kids go) you will see far lower numbers attending top UCs. They are opting for OOS privates because of the crazy admissions process, crowded campuses and poor housing situation. Middle class white kids are still attending the UCs.

False. The real reason is the top privates do horrendously in UC admissions.

You likely don't even know this exists:

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/admissions-source-school

UC enrollment has been going up for several top privates like Nueva, Menlo, Harker. Admissions is low however.

PP: I know that material well, extremely well in fact. I also know the A-G requirements, ninth grade exclusion (not at SLO), ELC implications (local and state), etc. whatever you would like to talk about. I can tell you exactly why Stanley Zhong was shut out as well...hint, he had a terrible transcript for UC requirements.

I also know that your hypothesis is totally incorrect. I also know that multiple large privates in the Bay Area actually suggest to kids that they not apply to the top UCs unless they actually want to attend because the number of slots they end up with is pretty consistent or fixed depending on your POV. So top kids getting slots that won't yield hurts others at the school who would yield.

Why do you think admissions are low? The top kids generally aren't applying unless they are Asian. They are choosing top privates instead though a few will go for other subjects. Also, many of the Asian kids from the schools that you mention go top Private as well. The UCs are far more interesting to Asian Public school kids in the Bay Area.

Show me Stanley’s transcript. why was it “bad for UCs” when he had a top gpa

HIs transcript is in the pleading appendix, go look it up. Top GPA is meaningless somewhere like Gunn, the school is full of top GPA kids. He barely covered his A-G requirements, his covering classes outside of of Math often lacked rigor (Honors vs AP from a school like Paly is the "kiss of death" for a top UC) and his load wasn't balanced.

He either:
1. Got terrible advice from the counselors which given it was Gunn that he went to.
2. His family ignored the counselors advice believing that peak test scores were actually all that really mattered.

His application wasn't aligned to UC (or most elite) admissions at all. Given the two schools that he did get into there were schools willing to see his CS potential and overlook the rest of the deficiencies but that isn't generally a winning bet. His case has zero chance of success.

+1 His case has zero chance. His GPA, as reported by his parents, isn't the UC calculation. UC's only look at 10th and 11th year grades, Stanley got a B in 10th grade, that right there puts him below at least 30 kids in his own high school and literally 100's from the local area public and private high schools. Plus as the prior poster points out he didn't have max rigor in all subjects as required.

https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/157820.pdf

His GPA was a 3.97 UW and 4.583 weighted. This was top 1% in his class. You all have to be clueless jokers.

That is not his UC GPA, and he was top 9% percent of his class, not top 1% for the UC's. Cal and UCLA admitted several of his higher ranked high school peers.

Incorrect. He was top 9% according to ELC but ELCs only state whether you are top 9% of your class. Not any higher. So he likely was top 1% with that gpa.

Yes, he was top 9% from his high school by UC calculation (that is literally dozens of kids at Gunn). That guaranteed him a spot at UC Merced.
He was not the valedictorian etc. that B pulls him into the lower portion of the 9% cohort. He got passed over by other, higher placed Asians

Figures you dont know what you’re talking about

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1696538432/pausdorg/vkkgz0nal1ardiyajxr6/gunnprofile2023-202410-5-23.pdf

Gunn’s top gpa was a 4.522 weighted this past year. Stanley’s weighted was a 4.58. It’s inconceivable he was bottom of top 9%. More likely he was top of his class

Again, he was top 9% by UC, but not the top of that of that group. Stop looking at his weighted GPA on a transcript that a) using 9th/12th grade which UC"s don't and b) doesn't cap the impact of AP's (UC's only give weighting to a maximum of 8 classes).

take a look at the placement.

https://gunn.pausd.org/campus-life/college-career-center/college-matriculation-summary

more than 10% of the class (43 to 45 people) go to top 20 colleges - some far more selective than Cal instate.

Stanley like got rejected due to what i see as lackluster essays. Not due to his uc gpa at all

But not because he is Asian . . .

Maybe, maybe not. I say we drown them in litigation until they stop trying to create racially diverse calsses.

Better to just revoke their tax exempt status and remove all federal funding and research. This is going to happen whenever a Republican is in office because it is one of the few things trump is doing that polls extremely well. Everyone seems to think colleges should not be in the racial discrimination game.

How do you revoke tax exempt status from a state school?

Sometimes you can't just destroy the racists, especially when the racists are institutions.
We have to reform racist institutions not destroy them.
Make the brand of socially acceptable brand of racism these schools engage in as socially unacceptable as every other kind of racism.
We are making pro0gress. We will get there.