The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Table 11 you fool. Table 11.

+1

Best evidence of racism I can think of.

Then you don't read enough.

??

Evidence is about facts and numbers, not about "reading."

Table 11 is incredible. In a meritocratic Harvard, with no legacies or athletes or racial preferences, less than a third of current African Americans would have got it, and less than two thirds of Hispanics.

The main losers? Asian Americans and non-legacy whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Table 11 you fool. Table 11.

+1

Best evidence of racism I can think of.

Then you don't read enough.

??

Evidence is about facts and numbers, not about "reading."

Table 11 is incredible. In a meritocratic Harvard, with no legacies or athletes or racial preferences, less than a third of current African Americans would have got it, and less than two thirds of Hispanics.

The main losers? Asian Americans and non-legacy whites.

Dipsh*t, you learn facts and numbers by 'reading'. Isn't that how you found your magical Table 11? Or did it come to you in a vision?

If this is the best evidence of racism you can think of, then, yes, you don't read enough to accumulate facts and numbers.

[Anonymous]

Not much of a response on the merits . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

I work in higher education admin. in a finance area. Outside of the schools that have big teams that net revenues from TV, etc. Sports is a cost to schools not a money maker. Title IX expanded equity, so you have more sports to pay for. Facilities, scholarships, salaries. It all adds up.

So, no. Outside of the big 10 school I worked at, it's not a money maker. It's a student life benefit really. And a belief that sports adds to the educational experience for students as either participants or spectators. Also, to make donors happy.

All of the schools you mention lose money from having these sports. But they aren't going anywhere.

Sports can stay. Admissions spots reserved for athletes should go. Legacy admits should go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not much of a response on the merits . . . .

This has been hashed out extensively in two other threads this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not much of a response on the merits . . . .

The weakness and unanswered questions raised by this table have been discussed on the existing threads. Try - gasp - reading them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As usual, whites piggy-backing off of the efforts of minorities (Asian plaintiff).

Wow! You really dislike "whites."

[Anonymous]

Metric driven Asians who are not wrongly believe SAT or ACT or GPA scores are only metrics to be considered.

College is not a "cram school" only for studying.

Schools have bands, football teams, Frats, clubs, musicians, and are diverse with folks from different cultures, states and countries, different religions and income levels. It is a time to learn about everything not just what is in a dusty old book.

My time in college the kids who only studied, sat in Library, rarely went out, may have got good grades but got zero from college experience and stole from other kids their college experience.

Asians in general should sue to promote diversity but 100 percent wrong to sue to turn a school from one race to their race.

Imagine a college with no teams, no art department, no shows, no music, no frats, no bars, no religion, no politics or parties. Just little robots with heads down studying. Sadly who wants to go to that school. Well that school is what the Asians are suing to create at Harvard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

I work in higher education admin. in a finance area. Outside of the schools that have big teams that net revenues from TV, etc. Sports is a cost to schools not a money maker. Title IX expanded equity, so you have more sports to pay for. Facilities, scholarships, salaries. It all adds up.

So, no. Outside of the big 10 school I worked at, it's not a money maker. It's a student life benefit really. And a belief that sports adds to the educational experience for students as either participants or spectators. Also, to make donors happy.

All of the schools you mention lose money from having these sports. But they aren't going anywhere.

Sports can stay. Admissions spots reserved for athletes should go. Legacy admits should go.

Your going to have non-athletic kids play sports. ???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Metric driven Asians who are not wrongly believe SAT or ACT or GPA scores are only metrics to be considered.

College is not a "cram school" only for studying.

Schools have bands, football teams, Frats, clubs, musicians, and are diverse with folks from different cultures, states and countries, different religions and income levels. It is a time to learn about everything not just what is in a dusty old book.

My time in college the kids who only studied, sat in Library, rarely went out, may have got good grades but got zero from college experience and stole from other kids their college experience.

Asians in general should sue to promote diversity but 100 percent wrong to sue to turn a school from one race to their race.

Imagine a college with no teams, no art department, no shows, no music, no frats, no bars, no religion, no politics or parties. Just little robots with heads down studying. Sadly who wants to go to that school. Well that school is what the Asians are suing to create at Harvard

Imagine an academic institution only caring about academics. Fancy that. Other top rated universities around the world only look at stats. It doesn't seem to have hurt their world standing. Oxford and Cambridge come to mind, as does Cal tech and Cal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-white-students-legacy-athletes-donors.html?fbclid=IwAR1rIja_w5l2GYZp9tcN5o0sdyhJ01IKtZnfarZ6ridBABkHREuuniQdr68

The paper is based on data that emerged during the controversial lawsuit that accused the university of discriminating against Asian applicants, which gave the public an unprecedented look behind the scenes of the school’s admissions process. (Closing arguments in that case wrapped in February, but the judge has not rendered a decision.) The study’s lead author, Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono, served as an expert witness for the case’s plaintiffs, who are seeking to eliminate the consideration of race in university admissions. But the new research was conducted independently without any funding from the plaintiffs, according to a disclosure.

Whites were also far more likely to be recruited for sports: Jocks made up an additional 16 percent of the white students that Harvard admitted, versus roughly 9 percent among blacks and 4 percent among Hispanics and Asians. Overall, approximately 69 percent of athletes accepted to Harvard were Caucasian.

43 percent of the Caucasian applicants accepted at Harvard University were either athletes, legacies, or the children of donors and faculty. Only about a quarter of those students would have been accepted to the school, the study concludes, without those admissions advantage . . . if you took away the admissions advantages, only 26 percent of the white athletes, legacies, dean’s listers, and faculty children Harvard admitted between 2009 and 2014 would still make the cut based on, say, their grades. At most, the white legacy/dean’s list/faculty kid group would have an acceptance rate of about 14 percent.

Thank you !!!

Please. Table 11 is the real kicker here. If you removed Athletic and Legacy preferences, Table 11 tells you that rich whites will be replaced by poor whites, but they will still be whites, so the white population would decrease just slightly. The real kicker is to remove Racial preferences. Then the game would change totally. White and Asian would increase ( White a little bit, Asian a lot and it would all come at the expense of Blacks and Hispanics, which we already knew) The Legacy, Athlete screed from the left is just a red herring as this paper and Table 11 shows

DP.. I'm not reading these posts the same as you.

What I'm reading is that affirmative action for legacies and athletes disproportionately help white people at the expense of more qualified Asian American students.

OP posted that some white people claim that brown and black people are the recipients of affirmative action, but here in this article, we see that a large portion of white people are also big beneficiaries of affirmative action.

The biggest loser every which way you see it are Asian Americans -- the smallest minority group in the US (aside from Native Americans, of course).

Study after study shows white women are the biggest winners of affirmative action as it's used today but no one wants to admit that. ~Asian American who went to MIT (I know, a stereotype).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metric driven Asians who are not wrongly believe SAT or ACT or GPA scores are only metrics to be considered.

College is not a "cram school" only for studying.

Schools have bands, football teams, Frats, clubs, musicians, and are diverse with folks from different cultures, states and countries, different religions and income levels. It is a time to learn about everything not just what is in a dusty old book.

My time in college the kids who only studied, sat in Library, rarely went out, may have got good grades but got zero from college experience and stole from other kids their college experience.

Asians in general should sue to promote diversity but 100 percent wrong to sue to turn a school from one race to their race.

Imagine a college with no teams, no art department, no shows, no music, no frats, no bars, no religion, no politics or parties. Just little robots with heads down studying. Sadly who wants to go to that school. Well that school is what the Asians are suing to create at Harvard

Imagine an academic institution only caring about academics. Fancy that. Other top rated universities around the world only look at stats. It doesn't seem to have hurt their world standing. Oxford and Cambridge come to mind, as does Cal tech and Cal.

And let me add... Cambridge produces some top talent in theatre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why someone would think that whites' (or any other racial group's) motivation is racial solidarity. As a nonathletic, non-legacy white person, why would I be happy that white athletes and legacies are benefiting from preferences? As a non-athletic, non-legacy white person, I recognize that I am being screwed by athletic, legacy, and race preferences. I understand the motives behind these preferences: legacies and athletes make the university more profitable. Race preferences appeal to the racists on the left, Harvard's natural constituency.

The thing is ... you "understand the motives" behind the preferences that overwhelmingly benefit white applicants. You see an arguable value to that. You apparently don't see a value to race-based weighting. Other reasonable minds value things differently. A lot of people see a value to racial diversity and avoiding student populations that are too unbalanced. They also see value to the different point of view and cultural background brought by students of different races.

The larger point, the reality that these numbers reveal is that admissions to super competitive schools are not merit-based in the way that some people define merit. They cannot be because schools receive so many more similarly qualified applicants than they can take. They need to consider other factors beyond grades and scores, which are not really the objective standard a lot of people thing they are, anyway. Rejected applicants that file lawsuits because they "should've" gotten in have a misplaced sense of entitlement.

+1

[Anonymous]

Why do you say affirmative action is ok as long as it helps white people? I am white and believe that is wrong. I am against all affirmative action. People should be let into schools based on their merits, not based on racial or religious quotas. My parent was denied entry to an ivy league school based on his religion. I am a firm believer in earning your way into school. Get rid of legacy, athletic merit, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metric driven Asians who are not wrongly believe SAT or ACT or GPA scores are only metrics to be considered.

College is not a "cram school" only for studying.

Schools have bands, football teams, Frats, clubs, musicians, and are diverse with folks from different cultures, states and countries, different religions and income levels. It is a time to learn about everything not just what is in a dusty old book.

My time in college the kids who only studied, sat in Library, rarely went out, may have got good grades but got zero from college experience and stole from other kids their college experience.

Asians in general should sue to promote diversity but 100 percent wrong to sue to turn a school from one race to their race.

Imagine a college with no teams, no art department, no shows, no music, no frats, no bars, no religion, no politics or parties. Just little robots with heads down studying. Sadly who wants to go to that school. Well that school is what the Asians are suing to create at Harvard

Imagine an academic institution only caring about academics. Fancy that. Other top rated universities around the world only look at stats. It doesn't seem to have hurt their world standing. Oxford and Cambridge come to mind, as does Cal tech and Cal.

If you want an only academic school... apply to Cal Tech.

If you want a well rounded college experience, deal with athletes and artists.