Harvard’s loss was Boston College’s gain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

I don’t get this. If you were to randomly choose a poor person in the US, chances would be that they’re white. Those chances definitely increase towards white and asian when you factor elite college prepared poor children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and I thought this would be about the 5-1 BC over H win in the BeanPot tourney. As it turns out, I'm not sure what this thread is about.

Ha! Me too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

Say what you really mean, PP.

“Valuing diversity” is simply code for racist bigotry against Asian applicants.

That’s what you want? More racism?

TBH, the PP you responded to is obviously a Democrat, and it was the democrats who bitterly fought against racial integration.

+1

The KKK was founded by democrats.

That was before the ideology realignment in the 1960s, you dumb fck.

KKK proudly supports the "American First" GOP.

Sure - all 5 of its current inbred members who are still alive.

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty sure the percentage of Asian students at top 20 universities is above 25 percent at each and every single one of them. So I’m not sure what the problem is. Asian Americans are about 7 percent of the population so they are very well represented at the most selective schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Harvard's Asian admits go up to 41% last year?

That could be international Asians

More likely it is a reflection of the fact Asian-Americans were discriminated against by “race-conscious” (or affirmative action or racial quotas) admissions policies, which effectively kept large numbers of highly-qualified, Asian-American students out of top universities for decades.

Sorry, not sorry: your anti-Asian bigotry has been exposed for what it is: racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Harvard's Asian admits go up to 41% last year?

That could be international Asians

More likely it is a reflection of the fact Asian-Americans were discriminated against by “race-conscious” (or affirmative action or racial quotas) admissions policies, which effectively kept large numbers of highly-qualified, Asian-American students out of top universities for decades.

Sorry, not sorry: your anti-Asian bigotry has been exposed for what it is: racism.

Application numbers have kept large quantities of highly-qualified white and Asian students out of top schools for decades. It's not racism, it's math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure the percentage of Asian students at top 20 universities is above 25 percent at each and every single one of them. So I’m not sure what the problem is. Asian Americans are about 7 percent of the population so they are very well represented at the most selective schools.

The issue is entitlement with a Hint of racial superiority complex. they don’t believe it possible that another person from another race could be successful academically in a legitimate matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

I don’t get this. If you were to randomly choose a poor person in the US, chances would be that they’re white. Those chances definitely increase towards white and asian when you factor elite college prepared poor children.

I remember reading an analysis of this and they said that the majority of poor kids with high test scores were rural whites. This is the absolute last group selective colleges want to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

Say what you really mean, PP.

“Valuing diversity” is simply code for racist bigotry against Asian applicants.

That’s what you want? More racism?

Race has always been the primary political tool of the Democratic party.

TBH, the PP you responded to is obviously a Democrat, and it was the democrats who bitterly fought against racial integration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMD, for one, is simply ignoring the S.Ct.,s order in SFFA and continuing its race-conscious admissions policies.

They will continue to break the law until someone or some group files a civil lawsuit against them.

UMD is not alone in ignoring Supreme Court precedent. That is the reason you are not seeing major increases in Asian student percentages.

And for its part, Harvard is eagerly seeking “work arounds” such as its reliance on Quest Bridge applicants, admitting based on FARMs and FGLI status (which are allowed as proxies for skin color).

Why the desire to attend these institutions that clearly value diversity when you clearly do not? That seems like a bad fit.

Say what you really mean, PP.

“Valuing diversity” is simply code for racist bigotry against Asian applicants.

That’s what you want? More racism?

Race has always been the primary political tool of the Democratic party.

TBH, the PP you responded to is obviously a Democrat, and it was the democrats who bitterly fought against racial integration.

Race has always been the primary political tool of the Democratic party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The lawyer behind the attacks on Affirmative Action, Edward Blum, is a white man who was trying to use the case to further his racist (anti-brown people) views, and he was using the Asian American plaintiffs as a pawn. His ultimate goal is to bring down Affirmative Action in the workplace so that white males can get an even more leg-up in life. If you thought he cared about Asian Americans, you were incredibly naive.

- Asian American parent

So you were cool with overt racial discrimination directed at your kids?

What is it that makes him anti-brown, other than being against pro-brown racism?
Ed Blum is at it again, this time he is going after legacy admissions.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if you think today's Democrats are the ones before Richard Nixon, you are missing a lot.

They never got any new tools for their toolbox, they are just using the same ones from the other side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://archive.ph/9tHjW

Did Asians benefit from Affirmative Action Ban?

This article says no.

Increasingly lost in all this ... is Asian-American students. The thrust of the lawsuit that overturned race in admissions was that Harvard was discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Yet since the ruling, their numbers have barely budged.

Only 10 of the 39 colleges in the New England sample saw the number of Asian-American students increase over the last two years.

“The bottom line is that this lawsuit at Harvard claimed to be about supposed anti-Asian discrimination,”
“And if that were actually the case, then you would expect to see increases in Asian-American students. There are some at super-selective institutions, but what we mainly see are big changes in other underrepresented minorities.”

That would be because Asians were not and are not being discriminated against.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://archive.ph/9tHjW

Did Asians benefit from Affirmative Action Ban?

This article says no.

Increasingly lost in all this ... is Asian-American students. The thrust of the lawsuit that overturned race in admissions was that Harvard was discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Yet since the ruling, their numbers have barely budged.

Only 10 of the 39 colleges in the New England sample saw the number of Asian-American students increase over the last two years.

“The bottom line is that this lawsuit at Harvard claimed to be about supposed anti-Asian discrimination,”
“And if that were actually the case, then you would expect to see increases in Asian-American students. There are some at super-selective institutions, but what we mainly see are big changes in other underrepresented minorities.”

That would be because Asians were not and are not being discriminated against.

This is the most likely conclusion.

- The number and share of White and Asian American freshmen remained relatively flat across the board, although there was a slight uptick in the number and share of Asian American freshmen at Ivy Plus schools.

- Interestingly, Hispanic enrollment increased in aggregate at more selective institutions that did not provide a legacy preference and declined at those that did. This disparity was not observed for Black students.

- These enrollment patterns reflect a phenomenon known as a cascade effect, in which highly qualified students of color who would have been much more likely to be admitted to highly selective institutions pre-SFFA ended up enrolling in less selective institutions, thus displacing students there and pushing them to less selective institutions.

DP

To be fair, there is probably a little bit of "massive resistance" going on. A la Brown v Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://archive.ph/9tHjW

Did Asians benefit from Affirmative Action Ban?

This article says no.

Increasingly lost in all this ... is Asian-American students. The thrust of the lawsuit that overturned race in admissions was that Harvard was discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Yet since the ruling, their numbers have barely budged.

Only 10 of the 39 colleges in the New England sample saw the number of Asian-American students increase over the last two years.

“The bottom line is that this lawsuit at Harvard claimed to be about supposed anti-Asian discrimination,”
“And if that were actually the case, then you would expect to see increases in Asian-American students. There are some at super-selective institutions, but what we mainly see are big changes in other underrepresented minorities.”

That would be because Asians were not and are not being discriminated against.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yes all the middling changes in demographics really serve as strong evidence of discrimination.