MIT releases post-affirmative action class of 2028 data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess this shows that affirmative action really did hurt Asian American students. It’s interesting that it didn’t hurt white students. I actually thought it might benefit them, but it turns out it was neutral. Asians are kind of the like the 21st century Jews, schools didn’t want too many of them.

Exactly, white people tried to appease URM folks by hurting Asian Americans. They did that for over 50 years.

I always thought it was ironic that the white people were assuaging their white guilt over slavery and segregation by hurting a group of people that didn't own slaves or pass any jim crow laws.
What's next, assuaging white guilt over discriminating against asians by discriminating against the next immigrant group.

Don't forget Jews. Jews were before Asians.

PP here. Yes. We could borrow a few pages from your playbook on how to fight white supremacy, except this time its from the left and they actually think they're the good guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be interesting seeing how things develop if black students fall by two thirds across the board at elite schools, which now seems possible to likely, and as DEI internships dry up at white shoe firms in banking, consulting, law.

This is obviously a boon for HBCUs.

What does black politics look like under those circumstances? Will we see the end of Obama type respectability politicians, with more radical figures stepping in? A new dawn for Afropessimism? What happens if black people have no stake in elite institutions?

They need to step up and force their reps to push for education funding at the lower levels as well as encourage their community to work harder/smarter. I think the first fight for Blacks is colleges mis-representing the "Black" number to include African Americans (kids born to recent African immigrants). Fix that first. Work at least as hard as them and see your numbers go up.

Roland fryer has figured out how to get black kids in harlem to academically outperform the white kids on the upper east side.
It's going to sound like common sense but he has a study that proves that studying more and placing greater value on education leads to better academic results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

I really hope they stay committed to it. People here don't care about diversity since they are majority white and wealthy, but I think scientific excellence in the black and hispanic community is important to not just the black/hispanic community in terms of representation but can have a tangible benefit to those communities.

Yeah but when you just pretend the excellence exists it doesn't help much at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the URM students accepted by MIT this year still going to be treated like they don't deserve to be there?

Of course.

The policy - or lack thereof - isn't the issue.

It's anti-black racism.

I suspect it will be a a while before the student body unlearns what it has learned over the last 50 years. That the URM kids are likely to be less qualified than the rest of the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several posters already seem to be uncomfortable with how Asian elite schools are getting and it's still early in the process. Will we see "white flight" out of the ivies?

We can only hope.

Look what happened to TJ. Affirmative action in disguise to significantly reduce Asian students in favor of other races. Clear discrimination that is an "inconvenient truth":

Asians face more discrimination (sometimes language difficulties as well) than URMs and still manage to excel and gain admission to top schools and gain employment to top companies.

It clearly is NOT discrimination.

It wasn’t about reducing the number of Asian students, it was about expanding access to more kids from across the county. Which is why they ADDED seats for this expanded access.

Asian students still make up the majority of students and are accepted at a higher rate than other groups. And, in fact, there are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ by school year (fall):


Acceptance rates (class of 2025):
Asian 19%
Black 14% (5% lower)
Multiracial/Other* 13% (6% lower)
Hispanic 21%
White 17%

Plus, the court decided it wasn’t discrimination.
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”

And the SCOTUS left ruling in place:
https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/20/supreme-court-wont-hear-thomas-jefferson-admissions-case/

On average, classes have ~60 more URMs, which was a huge % increase, more than 200% jump.



More importantly, we’ve seen representation from all middle schools and kids from lower-income families. In fact, per the courts, the students who benefited the most were Asian from low-income families.

TJ is not just a school for wealthy kids from feeder schools. Or wealthy kids who gained an unfair advantage because their families could afford to get access to previous test questions on an NDA-protected test.

You don’t sound very smart or you’re just evil. Did you purposely forget to look at the percentage of each race?

That one way to respond when the numbers aren't on your side

??
Do you know the percentage numbers? I know for a fact, Asian percentages dropped a lot after the TJ “reform”.

Mostly because the denominator increased. The actual number of Asian students attending is close to an all-time high.

Math.

Why are Asians subject to higher standards? That’s racist and unlawful.

Asians are not being subjected to higher standards.
They have reduced standards so that the admitted class looks more like the applicant pool.
THAT is how much they wanted to racially balance the population. They were willing to undermine what made TJ the crown jewel of FCPS and top ranked high school in the nation so that they could increase diversity.

Diversity is vitally important to higher education in this country. You won't change my mind about that.

If you think its OK to achieve diversity through racial discrimination then you are a racist and noone really cares what you think.
I think diversity is nice, I would like if i can have it without being racist.
You can try to change my mind about that but it's going to be a heavy lift to convince me that racism is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several posters already seem to be uncomfortable with how Asian elite schools are getting and it's still early in the process. Will we see "white flight" out of the ivies?

We can only hope.

Look what happened to TJ. Affirmative action in disguise to significantly reduce Asian students in favor of other races. Clear discrimination that is an "inconvenient truth":

Asians face more discrimination (sometimes language difficulties as well) than URMs and still manage to excel and gain admission to top schools and gain employment to top companies.

It clearly is NOT discrimination.

It wasn’t about reducing the number of Asian students, it was about expanding access to more kids from across the county. Which is why they ADDED seats for this expanded access.

Asian students still make up the majority of students and are accepted at a higher rate than other groups. And, in fact, there are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ by school year (fall):


Acceptance rates (class of 2025):
Asian 19%
Black 14% (5% lower)
Multiracial/Other* 13% (6% lower)
Hispanic 21%
White 17%

Plus, the court decided it wasn’t discrimination.
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”

And the SCOTUS left ruling in place:
https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/20/supreme-court-wont-hear-thomas-jefferson-admissions-case/

On average, classes have ~60 more URMs, which was a huge % increase, more than 200% jump.



More importantly, we’ve seen representation from all middle schools and kids from lower-income families. In fact, per the courts, the students who benefited the most were Asian from low-income families.

TJ is not just a school for wealthy kids from feeder schools. Or wealthy kids who gained an unfair advantage because their families could afford to get access to previous test questions on an NDA-protected test.

You don’t sound very smart or you’re just evil. Did you purposely forget to look at the percentage of each race?

That one way to respond when the numbers aren't on your side

??
Do you know the percentage numbers? I know for a fact, Asian percentages dropped a lot after the TJ “reform”.

Mostly because the denominator increased. The actual number of Asian students attending is close to an all-time high.

Math.

Why are Asians subject to higher standards? That’s racist and unlawful.

Asians are not being subjected to higher standards.
They have reduced standards so that the admitted class looks more like the applicant pool.
THAT is how much they wanted to racially balance the population. They were willing to undermine what made TJ the crown jewel of FCPS and top ranked high school in the nation so that they could increase diversity.

Diversity is vitally important to higher education in this country. You won't change my mind about that.

How much does Soros pay you to destroy this country?

George Soros is worth about 7 billion. The Koch family could buy and sell him 10 times.

Soros isn't paying him to destroy america, he's doing it for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

They were still much less likely to get in for many many years before mit made it easier for women to get in. Women representation is also pretty important for sciences.

Colleges are graduating more women with 4 year degrees than men with 4 year degrees.
Law schools are graduating more female lawyers than male lawyers.
Medical schools are graduating more female doctors than male doctors.
Are you sure women need artificial preferences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

The MIT acceptance rate for women is almost double that for men. Is the female applicant pool that much better than the male applicant pool?

Show me their SAT scores.
The self selection to apply to MIT among women is different than among men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the URM students accepted by MIT this year still going to be treated like they don't deserve to be there?

Sentiment won't change overnight.
They need to earn it over time..
Revisit in 10 years.

Why the F would they have to "earn" it??? The whole premise of this discussion is that no affirmative action has been applied.

Because 50 years of affirmative action has taught the institution that URM students are less qualified.
It will take a while for the institution to unlearn that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

The MIT acceptance rate for women is almost double that for men. Is the female applicant pool that much better than the male applicant pool?

It’s probably somewhat stronger. Young men tend to be cocksure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Mathematical_Olympiad_participants

Absolutely at the very very right hand tail of the curve, men are much more common but at the 1550 SAT score range of the curve, the difference is not quite as stark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

They were still much less likely to get in for many many years before mit made it easier for women to get in. Women representation is also pretty important for sciences.

So you think that having women in science is important but having URMs is not?

And also, what about equity in science for LGTBQIA+ students / future scientists?

What about left handed people and colorblind people and people with type 1 diabetes?
Shouldn't they all be represented?
This conversation is getting stupid.
Why should sexual orientation matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

The MIT acceptance rate for women is almost double that for men. Is the female applicant pool that much better than the male applicant pool?

Show me their SAT scores.
The self selection to apply to MIT among women is different than among men.

The SAT is not hard enough to show the difference between someone that is very good vs. excellent. Top math competitions are more useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

They were still much less likely to get in for many many years before mit made it easier for women to get in. Women representation is also pretty important for sciences.

So you think that having women in science is important but having URMs is not?

And also, what about equity in science for LGTBQIA+ students / future scientists?

Is there more or less LGTBQIA+ representation than URM representation today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the URM students accepted by MIT this year still going to be treated like they don't deserve to be there?

Sentiment won't change overnight.
They need to earn it over time..
Revisit in 10 years.

Why the F would they have to "earn" it??? The whole premise of this discussion is that no affirmative action has been applied.

Because 50 years of affirmative action has taught the institution that URM students are less qualified.
It will take a while for the institution to unlearn that

Accepted across the board this year with the same AP classes, the same AP scores, the same ACT or SAT scores, the same ECs... and still less qualified?

Please point out how and/or where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the URM students accepted by MIT this year still going to be treated like they don't deserve to be there?

Sentiment won't change overnight.
They need to earn it over time..
Revisit in 10 years.

Why the F would they have to "earn" it??? The whole premise of this discussion is that no affirmative action has been applied.

Because 50 years of affirmative action has taught the institution that URM students are less qualified.
It will take a while for the institution to unlearn that

Accepted across the board this year with the same AP classes, the same AP scores, the same ACT or SAT scores, the same ECs... and still less qualified?

Please point out how and/or where?

For top schools like MIT, AP and SAT are only part of the package. Major differentiators reside in EC achievements.