SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has this been mentioned yet? The total undergrad enrollment numbers for many of these colleges are so small that without an explicit or de facto quota system (AA functions as a de facto quota system even if actual quotas are explicitly not allowed) you are apt to see large and random fluctuations in demographics from year to year if race (or proxies for race) are truly not allowed to be considered. Simply because the classes are so small. You are talking about total class sizes of 1-2k and hundreds of thousands of applicants, a huge percentage of whom are academically qualified to attend. A truly race-blind admission process would result in random percentages because in any given year you could have a qualified class admitted of Amy one race category. You could absolutely have a class that was 70% black or 80% AAPI depending on what non-race factors the admissions committee focused on. And every admitted student would still have the high grades and test scores that are always minimally required.

Anyway I'm curious what would happen if they truly dropped diversity-of-class as a value and this happened. I think everyone would freak out. Sure, some members of the AAPI community would be enthusiastic about a class at Princeton or Yale that was over 50% AAPI. But would they be equally happy if the next year it was just 5% AAPI and 70% white? No.

People think they want true merit but I actually think the reality of eliminating diversity as a core value in admissions would freak everyone out and they'd hate it.

You missed the part about baseline numbers of applicants. There will be much larger numbers of some groups and much smaller numbers of others. So wild fluctuations are much less likely.

When you have a huge number of qualified applicants and a very small number of spots it's very easy to create heavily skewed classes. Due to the small size of the admitted class you are likely to have a certain amount of variation and you could accidentally wind up with a class that is not at all representative of the demographic mix of applicants. Also when schools look for other qualities in students any of these can wind up being an accidental proxy for race depending on demographic trends. A school could decide to emphasize demonstrated commitment to the arts or foreign language or athletics or charitable activity in their admitted class and if there is not counterbalance of diversity this could result in highly skewed classes (for both race and gender btw). Yes people will then seek to game those preferences but what if they change.

Because such a tiny percent of applicants receive spots and because a surprisingly high percent of applicants have the test scores and grades that will minimally qualify them for entry it is very easy to wind up with a class that is very unrepresentative of the population (either as a whole or of applicants) by accident.

Larger schools don't have this same risk because of mean reversion. Penn and Cornell both have much larger undergraduate classes and this makes it less likely they will wind up with a very skewed or non-diverse class even without emphasizing diversity. Though they could also see large swings in percentages. State universities that are many multiples the size of private colleges have even less risk especially if applicant classes are proportionally smaller.

But if you are Yale or Dartmouth and you get 300k applicants and of those 90k are minimally qualified and you need to select 1k to admit it is incredibly easy to wind up with a class that bears no resemblance to a normal demographic break down unless you introduce diversity in some way to the process (whether that's explicitly considering race as in AA or looking at proxies like geography or parents HHI or high school or whatever).

I just think that if you truly eliminated diversity as a value the people arguing about this might not like it as much as they think they would if some years the numbers cut against their demographics. There is obviously this assumption that if you don't use race or race-proxies that suddenly this will greatly favor AAPI candidates. But I feel confident this is not absolutely true at these tiny elite colleges. It is likely true at larger state universities (and the UC systems experience bears this out). But Yale is not UC Berkeley.

What the harvard litigation taught us was that the applicants are not equally qualified.
Harvard doesn't get hundreds of thousands of applications, they get like 50k. Most of them are woefully underqualified. Just people shooting in the dark because they were test optional.
If Harvard takes the most qualified candidates, they end up with students that mirror the SAT score distribution because SAT scores correlate with pretty much everything else they measure except skin color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As crazy making as the college process is nowadays I want zero part of those foreign high stakes systems where everything hinges on how you score on the big exam. If you LIKE that system, go to college THERE! every other country uses it. Leave the US system to be unique in picking a broad student body.

No thank you. I will stay right here and fight to eliminate racial discrimination against asians.
It is wild that so many people get mad that people are fighting racism.
Like southern segregationist mad.

Race is gone from admissions.

I guess that is what these lawsuits will try to determine.
If we have to do this every year for generations, we will do it.
Noone should have to sit idly by while their children are being discriminated against because of their racer.

And since we are saying our kids are all born here, let's just say "Americans" and not "asians" now. My neighbor is ukrainian and her kids are just Americans.

We say asian because that is the group that is being discriminated against.

Why do you insist on putting students in these “reductionist racial groups”?

We're not the ones that are doing it. It is the folks who are in favor of affirmative action.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:
“It's not ridiculous at all. SFFA brought the action which was successful. Scotus said stop discriminating based upon race. Colleges and universities sent out letters asserting to alumni that, nevertheless, they remained committed to diversity (but only one kind) and started playing games in the essays. Not smart to thimb your nose at SCOTUS. The numbers of asian students went down! that wasn't supposed to happen. I hope they brong a second suit for clarification. The schools are defying the ruling and putting themselves in charge of race based admissions in America.”

Yes. It is quite ridiculous. SCOTUS is the most corrupt court ever and has no credibility and no ethics. They didn’t ban it for the military. Why is that? They didn’t address legacy admissions-otherwise known as white affirmative action. Why is that? Again, it’s all a lie. Nobody is entitled to go to these schools. Get over yourselves.

They didn't ban it for the military because national security holds a special place in constitutional analysis and the military academies have potentially distinct interests in considering the race of the applicant. Did you read the opinion?

They didn't address legacy admissions but SFFA did argue that they could achieve more diversity by abandoning legacy admissions but there is no constitutional prohibition from favoring legacies, but there is a constitutional prohibition from racial discrimination. Did you rad the opinion?

It's true, nobody is entitled to go to these schools, not even under-represented minorities.
It sounds like you are trying to defend racial discrimination when it suits your purposes.

Just a reminder of the vast gulf in academic ability of different groups:
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

8% of blacks get a 1200 or higher on the SAT
5% of hispanics get above a 1300 on the SAT
7% of whites get above a 1400 on the SAT
9% of asians get above a 1500 on the SAT

1% of blacks get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
2% of hispanics get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
7% of whites get a 1400 or higher on the SAT
23% of asians get a 1400 or higher on the SAT

Study harder and compete. Don't make excuses and complain.
Studies show that these differences are attributable in large part due to extra time studying. We've known this for at least a decade.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1406402111

If you don't want to study until past midnight every night, then don't complain that the ones that do get into better schools than you.

Academic ability as it applies to SATs only! SATs are only one factor.

It is the single most predictive factor and correlates with pretty much every other important factor.

What are the SAT scores of the CEOs of Fortune 100 companies?

Not sure what that has to do with academic ability but give me a name, I'll give you an SAT score range.

Based on what?

Colleges aren’t trying to pump out the best test takers.

You guys act like test scores are just a measure of some highly trainable but otherwise useless niche ability like being good at rubics cube or something. Don't let the princeton review ads fool you, standardized tests don't just test your ability to take standardized tests. They have highly predictive value, there is no real controversy about this among psychologists. There is about as much controversy about this as there is about global warming. The only people who don't believe it are people with an agenda to pursue. In this case racists who want to keep discriminating on the basis of race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4

Strawman. I didn’t say that.

Academic strength is one data point. The point is that it’s not the only attribute that is desirable.

You said colleges aren't just trying to pump out test takers so i thought you were saying that being good at tests only means you are good at tests.

If you are saying that colleges want something more than good students when picking students, I guess that's OK but they can't pick them based on race.

“Good students” can mean different things to different universities.

The point is that many top universities are looking for qualities outside of academic abilities. So their classes aren’t just the kids with the absolute highest SAT scores.

And that's fine... for now.
But what they shouldn't be looking for is skin color.

What is SFFA looking for?

SFFA is looking for color blind college admissions.
PLF is looking to eliminate discrimination against asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As crazy making as the college process is nowadays I want zero part of those foreign high stakes systems where everything hinges on how you score on the big exam. If you LIKE that system, go to college THERE! every other country uses it. Leave the US system to be unique in picking a broad student body.

No thank you. I will stay right here and fight to eliminate racial discrimination against asians.
It is wild that so many people get mad that people are fighting racism.
Like southern segregationist mad.

Race is gone from admissions.

I guess that is what these lawsuits will try to determine.
If we have to do this every year for generations, we will do it.
Noone should have to sit idly by while their children are being discriminated against because of their racer.

And since we are saying our kids are all born here, let's just say "Americans" and not "asians" now. My neighbor is ukrainian and her kids are just Americans.

We say asian because that is the group that is being discriminated against.

Why do you insist on putting students in these “reductionist racial groups”?

We're not the ones that are doing it. It is the folks who are in favor of affirmative action.

Affirmative action is gone for college admissions. Prospective students have moved on.

[Anonymous]

SFFA wants the stats of all non-Asians admitted to these colleges this year? Is that the short answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has this been mentioned yet? The total undergrad enrollment numbers for many of these colleges are so small that without an explicit or de facto quota system (AA functions as a de facto quota system even if actual quotas are explicitly not allowed) you are apt to see large and random fluctuations in demographics from year to year if race (or proxies for race) are truly not allowed to be considered. Simply because the classes are so small. You are talking about total class sizes of 1-2k and hundreds of thousands of applicants, a huge percentage of whom are academically qualified to attend. A truly race-blind admission process would result in random percentages because in any given year you could have a qualified class admitted of Amy one race category. You could absolutely have a class that was 70% black or 80% AAPI depending on what non-race factors the admissions committee focused on. And every admitted student would still have the high grades and test scores that are always minimally required.

Anyway I'm curious what would happen if they truly dropped diversity-of-class as a value and this happened. I think everyone would freak out. Sure, some members of the AAPI community would be enthusiastic about a class at Princeton or Yale that was over 50% AAPI. But would they be equally happy if the next year it was just 5% AAPI and 70% white? No.

People think they want true merit but I actually think the reality of eliminating diversity as a core value in admissions would freak everyone out and they'd hate it.

You missed the part about baseline numbers of applicants. There will be much larger numbers of some groups and much smaller numbers of others. So wild fluctuations are much less likely.

When you have a huge number of qualified applicants and a very small number of spots it's very easy to create heavily skewed classes. Due to the small size of the admitted class you are likely to have a certain amount of variation and you could accidentally wind up with a class that is not at all representative of the demographic mix of applicants. Also when schools look for other qualities in students any of these can wind up being an accidental proxy for race depending on demographic trends. A school could decide to emphasize demonstrated commitment to the arts or foreign language or athletics or charitable activity in their admitted class and if there is not counterbalance of diversity this could result in highly skewed classes (for both race and gender btw). Yes people will then seek to game those preferences but what if they change.

Because such a tiny percent of applicants receive spots and because a surprisingly high percent of applicants have the test scores and grades that will minimally qualify them for entry it is very easy to wind up with a class that is very unrepresentative of the population (either as a whole or of applicants) by accident.

Larger schools don't have this same risk because of mean reversion. Penn and Cornell both have much larger undergraduate classes and this makes it less likely they will wind up with a very skewed or non-diverse class even without emphasizing diversity. Though they could also see large swings in percentages. State universities that are many multiples the size of private colleges have even less risk especially if applicant classes are proportionally smaller.

But if you are Yale or Dartmouth and you get 300k applicants and of those 90k are minimally qualified and you need to select 1k to admit it is incredibly easy to wind up with a class that bears no resemblance to a normal demographic break down unless you introduce diversity in some way to the process (whether that's explicitly considering race as in AA or looking at proxies like geography or parents HHI or high school or whatever).

I just think that if you truly eliminated diversity as a value the people arguing about this might not like it as much as they think they would if some years the numbers cut against their demographics. There is obviously this assumption that if you don't use race or race-proxies that suddenly this will greatly favor AAPI candidates. But I feel confident this is not absolutely true at these tiny elite colleges. It is likely true at larger state universities (and the UC systems experience bears this out). But Yale is not UC Berkeley.

What the harvard litigation taught us was that the applicants are not equally qualified.
Harvard doesn't get hundreds of thousands of applications, they get like 50k. Most of them are woefully underqualified. Just people shooting in the dark because they were test optional.
If Harvard takes the most qualified candidates, they end up with students that mirror the SAT score distribution because SAT scores correlate with pretty much everything else they measure except skin color.

Almost no top college would agree with your comment that the majority of applicants are unqualified. They’d say the opposite, and the reason admissions standards have risen so much is because the profile of students is sharply increasing. Many students who don’t “qualify” for admission solely don’t qualify SAT/ACT wise, because test optional has increased the average sat for these institutions by 100 points.

Most people are much more critical of applicants than the AOs themselves. They just know the reality that there’s 40ishk very qualified applicants and they need a class of 2000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SFFA wants the stats of all non-Asians admitted to these colleges this year? Is that the short answer?

The asian students too. All the stats for all the students. You can't really do an analysis with partial data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SFFA wants the stats of all non-Asians admitted to these colleges this year? Is that the short answer?

The asian students too. All the stats for all the students. You can't really do an analysis with partial data.

With each identified by race. Also need their personal statements, mental health records, etc. Everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has this been mentioned yet? The total undergrad enrollment numbers for many of these colleges are so small that without an explicit or de facto quota system (AA functions as a de facto quota system even if actual quotas are explicitly not allowed) you are apt to see large and random fluctuations in demographics from year to year if race (or proxies for race) are truly not allowed to be considered. Simply because the classes are so small. You are talking about total class sizes of 1-2k and hundreds of thousands of applicants, a huge percentage of whom are academically qualified to attend. A truly race-blind admission process would result in random percentages because in any given year you could have a qualified class admitted of Amy one race category. You could absolutely have a class that was 70% black or 80% AAPI depending on what non-race factors the admissions committee focused on. And every admitted student would still have the high grades and test scores that are always minimally required.

Anyway I'm curious what would happen if they truly dropped diversity-of-class as a value and this happened. I think everyone would freak out. Sure, some members of the AAPI community would be enthusiastic about a class at Princeton or Yale that was over 50% AAPI. But would they be equally happy if the next year it was just 5% AAPI and 70% white? No.

People think they want true merit but I actually think the reality of eliminating diversity as a core value in admissions would freak everyone out and they'd hate it.

You missed the part about baseline numbers of applicants. There will be much larger numbers of some groups and much smaller numbers of others. So wild fluctuations are much less likely.

When you have a huge number of qualified applicants and a very small number of spots it's very easy to create heavily skewed classes. Due to the small size of the admitted class you are likely to have a certain amount of variation and you could accidentally wind up with a class that is not at all representative of the demographic mix of applicants. Also when schools look for other qualities in students any of these can wind up being an accidental proxy for race depending on demographic trends. A school could decide to emphasize demonstrated commitment to the arts or foreign language or athletics or charitable activity in their admitted class and if there is not counterbalance of diversity this could result in highly skewed classes (for both race and gender btw). Yes people will then seek to game those preferences but what if they change.

Because such a tiny percent of applicants receive spots and because a surprisingly high percent of applicants have the test scores and grades that will minimally qualify them for entry it is very easy to wind up with a class that is very unrepresentative of the population (either as a whole or of applicants) by accident.

Larger schools don't have this same risk because of mean reversion. Penn and Cornell both have much larger undergraduate classes and this makes it less likely they will wind up with a very skewed or non-diverse class even without emphasizing diversity. Though they could also see large swings in percentages. State universities that are many multiples the size of private colleges have even less risk especially if applicant classes are proportionally smaller.

But if you are Yale or Dartmouth and you get 300k applicants and of those 90k are minimally qualified and you need to select 1k to admit it is incredibly easy to wind up with a class that bears no resemblance to a normal demographic break down unless you introduce diversity in some way to the process (whether that's explicitly considering race as in AA or looking at proxies like geography or parents HHI or high school or whatever).

I just think that if you truly eliminated diversity as a value the people arguing about this might not like it as much as they think they would if some years the numbers cut against their demographics. There is obviously this assumption that if you don't use race or race-proxies that suddenly this will greatly favor AAPI candidates. But I feel confident this is not absolutely true at these tiny elite colleges. It is likely true at larger state universities (and the UC systems experience bears this out). But Yale is not UC Berkeley.

What the harvard litigation taught us was that the applicants are not equally qualified.
Harvard doesn't get hundreds of thousands of applications, they get like 50k. Most of them are woefully underqualified. Just people shooting in the dark because they were test optional.
If Harvard takes the most qualified candidates, they end up with students that mirror the SAT score distribution because SAT scores correlate with pretty much everything else they measure except skin color.

Almost no top college would agree with your comment that the majority of applicants are unqualified. They’d say the opposite, and the reason admissions standards have risen so much is because the profile of students is sharply increasing. Many students who don’t “qualify” for admission solely don’t qualify SAT/ACT wise, because test optional has increased the average sat for these institutions by 100 points.

Most people are much more critical of applicants than the AOs themselves. They just know the reality that there’s 40ishk very qualified applicants and they need a class of 2000.

The elite colleges are the arbiters of "qualified." The graduation rates are high as well. There are many good candidates,
but limited spots. Aggrieved people get mad when rejected. They need to find someone to blame, and as you can see in today's news, a group with dark skin pigmentation is usually the target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SFFA wants the stats of all non-Asians admitted to these colleges this year? Is that the short answer?

The asian students too. All the stats for all the students. You can't really do an analysis with partial data.

With each identified by race. Also need their personal statements, mental health records, etc. Everything.

I agree about the essays, but why would the admissions committee have mental health records?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SFFA wants the stats of all non-Asians admitted to these colleges this year? Is that the short answer?

The asian students too. All the stats for all the students. You can't really do an analysis with partial data.

With each identified by race. Also need their personal statements, mental health records, etc. Everything.

I agree about the essays, but why would the admissions committee have mental health records?

So long as they get the essays they can evaluate and compare discussions of family struggles, financial, immigration issues, medications, therapy, suicide attempts, gender dismorphia, divorces, lottery winnings, business failures, rational and irrational fears, car accidents... everything. Plus all the letters of recommendation from teachers. They will have to be identified by name and race as well. Everything

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure why schools don’t lean in more to the first-generation-to-college qualifier as a way of diversifying the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SFFA wants the stats of all non-Asians admitted to these colleges this year? Is that the short answer?

The asian students too. All the stats for all the students. You can't really do an analysis with partial data.

With each identified by race. Also need their personal statements, mental health records, etc. Everything.

I agree about the essays, but why would the admissions committee have mental health records?

So long as they get the essays they can evaluate and compare discussions of family struggles, financial, immigration issues, medications, therapy, suicide attempts, gender dismorphia, divorces, lottery winnings, business failures, rational and irrational fears, car accidents... everything. Plus all the letters of recommendation from teachers. They will have to be identified by name and race as well. Everything

No one will get mental health/ medical records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SFFA wants the stats of all non-Asians admitted to these colleges this year? Is that the short answer?

The asian students too. All the stats for all the students. You can't really do an analysis with partial data.

With each identified by race. Also need their personal statements, mental health records, etc. Everything.

I agree about the essays, but why would the admissions committee have mental health records?

So long as they get the essays they can evaluate and compare discussions of family struggles, financial, immigration issues, medications, therapy, suicide attempts, gender dismorphia, divorces, lottery winnings, business failures, rational and irrational fears, car accidents... everything. Plus all the letters of recommendation from teachers. They will have to be identified by name and race as well. Everything

No one will get mental health/ medical records.

Who is going to redact 100,000 essays before releasing them to the lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SFFA wants the stats of all non-Asians admitted to these colleges this year? Is that the short answer?

The asian students too. All the stats for all the students. You can't really do an analysis with partial data.

With each identified by race. Also need their personal statements, mental health records, etc. Everything.

I agree about the essays, but why would the admissions committee have mental health records?

So long as they get the essays they can evaluate and compare discussions of family struggles, financial, immigration issues, medications, therapy, suicide attempts, gender dismorphia, divorces, lottery winnings, business failures, rational and irrational fears, car accidents... everything. Plus all the letters of recommendation from teachers. They will have to be identified by name and race as well. Everything

Won't identifying all of the people (teachers, counselors, coaches, bosses, priests) who wrote letters-of-recommendation by name and race be a huge problem? Who would ever write a letter for a student ever again?