Post SCOTUS Ruling: Let the Essays Begin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

I agree. It’s why “oh no, someone might sue!” is a terrible way for a college to make admissions decisions. Someone WILL sue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

They have horrible lawyers that are currently today publicly admitting they are looking for pretense to use to continue racist policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

I agree. It’s why “oh no, someone might sue!” is a terrible way for a college to make admissions decisions. Someone WILL sue.

True. But a good process would be one that was legally defensible at the MTD stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Okay. Who told you “disparate impact” was the standard?

Idiot.

Disparate impact is enough to make out a complaint. We’re not asking if these people will win, we’re asking if they’ll sue. The Coalition for TJ claimed disparate impact and they’ve made a lot of fuss, even if they don’t win in the end.

You’re talking about sanctionability? Well I’m talking about the applicable holdings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

I agree. It’s why “oh no, someone might sue!” is a terrible way for a college to make admissions decisions. Someone WILL sue.

True. But a good process would be one that was legally defensible at the MTD stage.

Can anyone say what that is, at this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

They have horrible lawyers that are currently today publicly admitting they are looking for pretense to use to continue racist policies.

Aren’t they political appointees at the public colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

[Anonymous]

The essay could include an optional additional question asking the applicant to describe any challenges they have faced (if any) due to their parents' circumstances (e.g., divorce, job loss, incarceration, death, disease), how they overcame any resultant obstacles, and how these experience could make them a better college student. To capture more of an applicant's circumstances beyond a FAFSA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ChatGPT (if that gets too tamped down) one of its several competitors can be used to generate a 1000 truma/good ally essays. Pick one that you like, customize to your situation, personalize it and you're done. Game the gamers.

ChatGPT content is honestly remarkably easy to spot and has gotten worse instead of better over time due to operations costs.

Not just operational cost but also censorship to appease a ton or stakeholders, real and imagined. That's why I mentioned customization/personalization as well as using alternatives. There's a new one popping every day in the opensource world. Essay writing is a low hanging fruit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

An essay prompt taking the SCOTUS ruling head on and allowing a student to address it is as "front door" as one can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Okay. Who told you “disparate impact” was the standard?

Idiot.

Disparate impact is enough to make out a complaint. We’re not asking if these people will win, we’re asking if they’ll sue. The Coalition for TJ claimed disparate impact and they’ve made a lot of fuss, even if they don’t win in the end.

Exactly! Even if we win, it's likely too late for the kid to go to that school anyways. All that matters is that it cost the school money and trouble. That's all the win these folks need. Who will pay for their lawyers? Many special interest groups..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

That would be smart if it were true. But the opposite is happening. Colleges are going on the record in absolutely moronic ways. Talk about free discovery.