Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one asked me…but I think private colleges can do whatever they want, but public colleges should be merit only.

Define merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one asked me…but I think private colleges can do whatever they want, but public colleges should be merit only.

Define merit.

Not racial profiling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

You completely miss the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upthread it was commented that Asians are admitted at 3x their percentage of the population so there is presumably no discrimination. If this were true, Asians would be quite a bit higher as their objective scores are much higher than other races. Also, SAT scores are not that great of a gauge for many top unis. These kids that are admitted due to merit are presenting AIME or USAMO type scores. Anecdotally, it seems whites have a tougher time with admissions due to the participation of white kids in athletics. An unhooked, non-legacy white male has a very tough time at top unis given that whites are more likely to be legacies and/or athletes in rowing, squash, football, etc.

Enough with the "objective scores" thing. They are irrelevant. And why would you cite AIME as an entrance criteria? Since when was AIME a thing that most kids participate in? It's not even offered at the vast majority of schools and isn't on the radar of most people. Competition culture is not everywhere, nor does it define who is academically excellent. Tons of people have never even heard of USAMO. You are just making up your own criteria for who should be admitted because it is what suits YOUR kid. We may agree on what the criteria should not be --- illegal discrimination (which ahas not been established here). But who said you get to decide what any college's admissions criteria should be? Why should Harvard's next great poetry major be someone who took the AIME in high school? You seem very narrow minded about education and human intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a white person with both white kids and asian kids. I do not think my asian kids raised in the same house should have to score 300 points higher on the SAT for the same shot at admissions to my alma mater (Harvard). That is pure racism and I will never vote democrat again after seeing how they support this.

I could not agree with you more. This whole thing has gotten out of control and ridiculous.

Why are you solely focusing on SAT scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

and significantly lower stat kids got picked because of their skin color??

Something is terribly worng.

Yes, and that something is you. You are terribly wrong. First, your premise is wrong. They aren't picked because of their skin color. It is racist to say so.

Second, lower scores is not a problem at all in admissions, and you could only even suggest that if admissions is required to be based on a forced ranking of these two sets of numbers alone, it isn't; or if there was a limited number of spots in higher education in the United States. There isn't. And the ridiculous reason you think these things are so, is that you have bought into the false notion that colleges are ranked in some order of "best education," which is also ridiculous and false.

All of this controversy starts with USNWR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

No it mustn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upthread it was commented that Asians are admitted at 3x their percentage of the population so there is presumably no discrimination. If this were true, Asians would be quite a bit higher as their objective scores are much higher than other races. Also, SAT scores are not that great of a gauge for many top unis. These kids that are admitted due to merit are presenting AIME or USAMO type scores. Anecdotally, it seems whites have a tougher time with admissions due to the participation of white kids in athletics. An unhooked, non-legacy white male has a very tough time at top unis given that whites are more likely to be legacies and/or athletes in rowing, squash, football, etc.

Asians are overrepresented on elite college campuses. They aren't being discriminated against just because they are Asian.

In general they do well on standardized tests. That's just one aspect of holistic admissions and really isn't " merit" if you come out of a culture of test mills and incessant test prep ( country wide tests happen across Asian countries). The top schools just don't want one dimensional bookworms. The SFFA looked at what Asians scored lowest in and used that as a claim of discrimination. Lower courts didn't find any discrimination.

The only difference is that there's now a conservative Court that will overturn established precedent. The facts haven't changed. Asians are being used under the "model minority" myth by whites to keep URM numbers low. Millions of dollars of dark money from conservative groups are funding this effort.

You are totally wrong. Asian kids also excel in ECs and other areas.
They excel in the musical department, so that high chair seats are filled with Asian kis.
They win all sorts of art contests. They write good essays without whining about being a minority.
You think the kids who need extra points would do better in other areas somehow?
This is the biggest myth created by underachievers.

So only mean left is racial profiling and discrimination.
Schools are not even just moving the goalposts. There are no goalposts, and this is a huge problem.
Asians are overrepresented mainly because they care about education, put efforts, and work hard.
There's no maigc in that, and the society should reward that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

Why can't Harvard admit students who have low test scores or no test scores at all?

They can as long as they don't discriminate against race

And the courts have found that they do not.

Sorry we have Supreme Court going on right now.
It's called 'Supreme' for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

Need blind, legacy blind, geography blind and color blind. That is how you achieve true equality & fairness for all. The current system is flawed.

By no means! The system must also be test score, gpa, and extracurricular blind, or we are unfairly discriminating against the stupid and lazy. True equality and fairness for all can only be achieved by a national lottery for all high school seniors - 1,500 randomly assigned to Harvard, 1,500 randomly assigned to Yale, 1,500 randomly assigned to Princeton, and so on. Totally fair and equal for all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upthread it was commented that Asians are admitted at 3x their percentage of the population so there is presumably no discrimination. If this were true, Asians would be quite a bit higher as their objective scores are much higher than other races. Also, SAT scores are not that great of a gauge for many top unis. These kids that are admitted due to merit are presenting AIME or USAMO type scores. Anecdotally, it seems whites have a tougher time with admissions due to the participation of white kids in athletics. An unhooked, non-legacy white male has a very tough time at top unis given that whites are more likely to be legacies and/or athletes in rowing, squash, football, etc.

Asians are overrepresented on elite college campuses. They aren't being discriminated against just because they are Asian.

In general they do well on standardized tests. That's just one aspect of holistic admissions and really isn't " merit" if you come out of a culture of test mills and incessant test prep ( country wide tests happen across Asian countries). The top schools just don't want one dimensional bookworms. The SFFA looked at what Asians scored lowest in and used that as a claim of discrimination. Lower courts didn't find any discrimination.

The only difference is that there's now a conservative Court that will overturn established precedent. The facts haven't changed. Asians are being used under the "model minority" myth by whites to keep URM numbers low. Millions of dollars of dark money from conservative groups are funding this effort.

You have to look at the application pool and their qualifications for college. You are looking at the population of the US as a whole. Wrong denominator.

Are you saying these schools admit students who are not qualified to attend college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

Need blind, legacy blind, geography blind and color blind. That is how you achieve true equality & fairness for all. The current system is flawed.

By no means! The system must also be test score, gpa, and extracurricular blind, or we are unfairly discriminating against the stupid and lazy. True equality and fairness for all can only be achieved by a national lottery for all high school seniors - 1,500 randomly assigned to Harvard, 1,500 randomly assigned to Yale, 1,500 randomly assigned to Princeton, and so on. Totally fair and equal for all!

What we need to strive in the society is fair competition.
I can not accept the fact that certain people get free points.