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

[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!

You've jumped the shark and devolved into calling children names since your merit = GPA + test scores only argument doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Free points? Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You've jumped the shark and devolved into calling children names since your merit = GPA + test scores only argument doesn't work.

I agree with merit = GPA + Test scores, + ECs + Awards + Special talents + Essay + etc.
I do not agee with racial discrimination.

[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 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.

All true. But are you willing to admit the corollary - a system that admits based on merit is going to exclude URMs, who will be underrepresented because they disproportionately don’t care about education and don’t work hard? They are the ones at the bottom who will be pushed out in a race-blind, merit-oriented admission system. Or are you in favor of a truly dishonest system in which Asians are overrepresented because merit, blacks are overrepresented because reasons, and whites are squeezed out from the middle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You've jumped the shark and devolved into calling children names since your merit = GPA + test scores only argument doesn't work.

Bad test scores and bad gpa = stupid and lazy. That’s just a fact. That’s why they are good predictors of college success.

[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

Since you agree they don't have to use test scores as a sole, force-ranked criteria and can admit people with low or no test scores for other reasons, you can't use "higher" test scores as evidence of discrimination -- that would be completely illogical. Also, the "Asians NEED to score 300 points higher" is patently false. They may on average HAVE higher scores; but that does not mean they need them to be admitted, because they are not in fact competing against only other Asian students and their test scores are not now, nor have they ever been, the sole criteria for admission. Obviously there are admitted Asian student with lower scores than rejected students of other races as well.

So, let's focus on the non-score related things Harvard did, particularly the personality profile thing, which is a far more serious matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You've jumped the shark and devolved into calling children names since your merit = GPA + test scores only argument doesn't work.

Bad test scores and bad gpa = stupid and lazy. That’s just a fact. That’s why they are good predictors of college success.

Terrible person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You've jumped the shark and devolved into calling children names since your merit = GPA + test scores only argument doesn't work.

I agree with merit = GPA + Test scores, + ECs + Awards + Special talents + Essay + etc.
I do not agee with racial discrimination.

No one agrees with racial discrimination, but not all use of race is discriminatory -- as a matter of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

All true. But are you willing to admit the corollary - a system that admits based on merit is going to exclude URMs, who will be underrepresented because they disproportionately don’t care about education and don’t work hard? They are the ones at the bottom who will be pushed out in a race-blind, merit-oriented admission system. Or are you in favor of a truly dishonest system in which Asians are overrepresented because merit, blacks are overrepresented because reasons, and whites are squeezed out from the middle?

If there's a problem, you should go to the source of the problem.
Caring about education and wokring hard is not the problem.
It should be rewarded.

[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.

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!

You've jumped the shark and devolved into calling children names since your merit = GPA + test scores only argument doesn't work.

I agree with merit = GPA + Test scores, + ECs + Awards + Special talents + Essay + etc.
I do not agee with racial discrimination.

No one agrees with racial discrimination, but not all use of race is discriminatory -- as a matter of law.

College admission is basically a zero-sum game.
If one gets in, one gets rejected.
If one person is favored because of race, the other one is racially discriminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

[Anonymous]

After listening to the hours of oral argument yesterday, I am confident the Court will hold that the use of race standing alone (i.e., check the box) is illegal. However, there are plenty of other factors they can consider such as socioeconomic status, ability to overcome hardship (as demonstrated in essays), etc. In the end, this will impact the make up of student bodies in the following way (according to models, what's happening at schools that have already made these changes): there will be more Asians, fewer whites, more Latinos, and fewer blacks. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but if whites think this is what's going to get your kid into Harvard, think again.

[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.

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!

You've jumped the shark and devolved into calling children names since your merit = GPA + test scores only argument doesn't work.

I agree with merit = GPA + Test scores, + ECs + Awards + Special talents + Essay + etc.
I do not agee with racial discrimination.

No one agrees with racial discrimination, but not all use of race is discriminatory -- as a matter of law.

College admission is basically a zero-sum game.
If one gets in, one gets rejected.
If one person is favored because of race, the other one is racially discriminated.

That isn't true. There are plenty of seats in colleges in this country. It's a huge country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, they are deciding whether or not to change decided precedent. That means these schools followed the law as it was, which is what the lower courts found. But now, this new Supreme Court may decided to change the established law (even though they aren't supposed to do that). I would not anticipate a retroactive application of it if they do change the law though.

It is not true that the Supreme Court is not supposed to change decided law. The Court generally follows the principle of stare decisis and applies precedent, but not all the time. In fact, if the Court followed established law in Brown v Board of Education, schools would still be segregated. Plus, the case being reconsidered here said that relying on race is very dangerous and the practice needs to come to an end at some point. Justice O'Connor said 25 years in the opinion.... it's not clear that's was part of the holding or a hard and fast rule, but we're very close to 25 years now. So, if the Court rules against UNC/Harvard in this case, it is not ignoring precedent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the hours of oral argument yesterday, I am confident the Court will hold that the use of race standing alone (i.e., check the box) is illegal. However, there are plenty of other factors they can consider such as socioeconomic status, ability to overcome hardship (as demonstrated in essays), etc. In the end, this will impact the make up of student bodies in the following way (according to models, what's happening at schools that have already made these changes): there will be more Asians, fewer whites, more Latinos, and fewer blacks. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but if whites think this is what's going to get your kid into Harvard, think again.

It simply isn't true that these schools are as coveted as USNWR makes it out to be. Harvard has a low admissions percentage, but it gets less than half the number of applicants that other colleges get. Of the more than 2 million high school students who apply to college only a little over 1% even apply to Harvard. This is an issue of interest to far fewer people than you may believe.