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:

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:

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.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Doubling down on the stupid.

If it is "not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented", then you can't claim any race is discriminated against in college admissions, ever.

Now I don't think that your statement is true, and I bet you don't either.

It's all about using the proper definition of representation. Black and hispanic students are OVER-represented relative to the proportion of QUALIFIED applicants to any university.

Thanks for putting your tell in ALL CAPS - that you think that you get to decide what QUALIFIED is.

Do you get to tell Goldman Sachs who is qualified for who they hire? Or Apple? Or your local grocer? Why not?

We do get to tell employers that they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race

That is not what I asked, and not what you said. You said QUALIFIED. You added that distinction, and made it essential to your argument.

So answer the question first, and then I will respond to your point.

Do you get to tell those employers who is qualified and who is not?

[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:

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: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.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Doubling down on the stupid.

If it is "not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented", then you can't claim any race is discriminated against in college admissions, ever.

Now I don't think that your statement is true, and I bet you don't either.

It's all about using the proper definition of representation. Black and hispanic students are OVER-represented relative to the proportion of QUALIFIED applicants to any university.

Thanks for putting your tell in ALL CAPS - that you think that you get to decide what QUALIFIED is.

Do you get to tell Goldman Sachs who is qualified for who they hire? Or Apple? Or your local grocer? Why not?

We do get to tell employers that they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race

That is not what I asked, and not what you said. You said QUALIFIED. You added that distinction, and made it essential to your argument.

So answer the question first, and then I will respond to your point.

Do you get to tell those employers who is qualified and who is not?

Why do you assume that you're responding to the same person? We get to tell Harvard (or any employer) that they can use any criteria that they like as long as they don't discriminate against a protected class. Good luck to Harvard trying to achieve a diverse student body while using criteria that stands up to the next lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% down with dismantling AA. The sad thing is that legacy preferences will remain.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain why Asians have to score higher than everyone else on the MCAT and have to have significantly higher GPAs than certain groups in order to get into medical school:



It is literally using race to hold people to different standards. Which is racism.

There is not one school in the country that is saying Asians must have higher scores and GPAs in order to be admitted. Because that WOULD be racism. You're just making that assumption based on others with lower numbers being admitted. But the reason they're admitted is because they offer something else the college values, not because they're not Asian.

They don't have to say, but the numbers clearly show that their actual actions are stating otherwise. Asians have to score higher on the MCAT and have a significantly higher GPA. It is clearly based on their race.

So you think entire teams of admissions officers, plus all the other officials who are aware of their policies, are in on a secret plot to deny admission to Asians? And not one member of those teams has the integrity to come forth and speak the truth, which would lead to a very quick loss in court? If so, you're worse than QAnon.

They are. You are not allowed to speak out against the diversity machine. We're so progressive that we've become racist. Why don't you look into why Asians have been denied at top universities. Soft reasons for why Asians have been denied by admissions officers at Harvard were due to 'personality scores' based on perceptions that an Asian student would probably 'study too much and not do well with team work' or that an Asian student basically had 'no sense of humor'. Basically, Asian students being denied because they were perceived as 'not being able to keep it real'. I mean what kind of BS nonsense is that, other than stereotyping Asian students based on their race. Yes, there is absolutely systemic racism at universities because university admins have no spine to stand up to the diversity and social justice warriors. Diversity doesn't really mean diversity....it only means apply exceptions to the rule for a very, very select group while discriminating against others.

You're swimming in QAnon waters with your conspiracy theory. No one has created a personality test to target a specific population.

Wrong:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

Next you'll try to tell me NYTs is a QAnon source.

Nothing in that article says that the personality test was created to exclude Asian applicants. That's your assumption. It would be ludicrous for anyone to create such a test for such a purpose. Almost every admission officer would refuse to use it, and they would be publicizing the blatant racism inherent in such a practice. On any measure, some group is going to score lowest. That doesn't mean they're being deliberately discriminated against.

You can try to explain away all you want, but no one believes your trash. Harvard *consistently* gave Asians lower 'personality scores' compared to all other racial groups. Of course they'll never admit that it is designed to weed out Asians because they can't do it based on test scores since Asians do far better. They had to come up with other BS ways to cut them out based on soft ideas like their perceived personality. The personality scores strongly correlate with race, which just goes to show you how racist it is. Imagine giving a black student negative personality scores because of a perception that they may 'disrupt the class' or 'be a trouble maker'. How racist would that be? That's the same type of discrimination Asian students have had to eat because of their race.

Absolutely, this is very shameful and Harvard has not apologized. Alum interviewers who actually met the applicants gave them personality scores on par with everyone else. The admissions office personnel gave Asians lower personality scores, which fit into racist tropes about Asians lacking in personality etc. It was absolutely to round out what they wanted in terms of diversity.

I'm not opposed to affirmative action or diversity actually. But Harvard's approach was really gross and it only came out because of discovery in this case (when all those applicant files were turned over).

- Asian Harvard alum

+1 I'd be ok with SES diversity, but what Harvard did there is absolutely shameful and racist.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

Agreed. They will find another way to get the diversity they seek.

They better find a way to be more careful or they'll just lose the next lawsuit too,

Diversity is not against the law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain why Asians have to score higher than everyone else on the MCAT and have to have significantly higher GPAs than certain groups in order to get into medical school:



It is literally using race to hold people to different standards. Which is racism.

There is not one school in the country that is saying Asians must have higher scores and GPAs in order to be admitted. Because that WOULD be racism. You're just making that assumption based on others with lower numbers being admitted. But the reason they're admitted is because they offer something else the college values, not because they're not Asian.

They don't have to say, but the numbers clearly show that their actual actions are stating otherwise. Asians have to score higher on the MCAT and have a significantly higher GPA. It is clearly based on their race.

So you think entire teams of admissions officers, plus all the other officials who are aware of their policies, are in on a secret plot to deny admission to Asians? And not one member of those teams has the integrity to come forth and speak the truth, which would lead to a very quick loss in court? If so, you're worse than QAnon.

They are. You are not allowed to speak out against the diversity machine. We're so progressive that we've become racist. Why don't you look into why Asians have been denied at top universities. Soft reasons for why Asians have been denied by admissions officers at Harvard were due to 'personality scores' based on perceptions that an Asian student would probably 'study too much and not do well with team work' or that an Asian student basically had 'no sense of humor'. Basically, Asian students being denied because they were perceived as 'not being able to keep it real'. I mean what kind of BS nonsense is that, other than stereotyping Asian students based on their race. Yes, there is absolutely systemic racism at universities because university admins have no spine to stand up to the diversity and social justice warriors. Diversity doesn't really mean diversity....it only means apply exceptions to the rule for a very, very select group while discriminating against others.

You're swimming in QAnon waters with your conspiracy theory. No one has created a personality test to target a specific population.

Wrong:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

Next you'll try to tell me NYTs is a QAnon source.

Nothing in that article says that the personality test was created to exclude Asian applicants. That's your assumption. It would be ludicrous for anyone to create such a test for such a purpose. Almost every admission officer would refuse to use it, and they would be publicizing the blatant racism inherent in such a practice. On any measure, some group is going to score lowest. That doesn't mean they're being deliberately discriminated against.

You can try to explain away all you want, but no one believes your trash. Harvard *consistently* gave Asians lower 'personality scores' compared to all other racial groups. Of course they'll never admit that it is designed to weed out Asians because they can't do it based on test scores since Asians do far better. They had to come up with other BS ways to cut them out based on soft ideas like their perceived personality. The personality scores strongly correlate with race, which just goes to show you how racist it is. Imagine giving a black student negative personality scores because of a perception that they may 'disrupt the class' or 'be a trouble maker'. How racist would that be? That's the same type of discrimination Asian students have had to eat because of their race.

Absolutely, this is very shameful and Harvard has not apologized. Alum interviewers who actually met the applicants gave them personality scores on par with everyone else. The admissions office personnel gave Asians lower personality scores, which fit into racist tropes about Asians lacking in personality etc. It was absolutely to round out what they wanted in terms of diversity.

I'm not opposed to affirmative action or diversity actually. But Harvard's approach was really gross and it only came out because of discovery in this case (when all those applicant files were turned over).

- Asian Harvard alum

+1 I'd be ok with SES diversity, but what Harvard did there is absolutely shameful and racist.

+2 another asian harvard alum who has done a lot of applicant interviews.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

Agreed. They will find another way to get the diversity they seek.

They better find a way to be more careful or they'll just lose the next lawsuit too,

Diversity is not against the law

Using race in admissions is about to be

[Anonymous]

But not everyone is given equal opportunity to succeed either. I was top of the class in a rural high school that did not offer APs and few advanced classes. We did not have college counseling. I took the SAT once (no test prep class) and did well but was not by any means perfect. My mother was a high school drop out and dad was out of the picture. I went to an Ivy. Would you compare me to an Asian who was denied admission and had higher scores and 13 more APs in deciding there was discrimination? I did not check the race box but I have an Hispanic last name. Now what? Would it be ok to admit me over others with higher scores and more rigorous classes because of my circumstances? What sort of “merit” would I be required to have to compete with the plaintiffs in this case? Does it matter that I did the best I could with what I was offered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But not everyone is given equal opportunity to succeed either. I was top of the class in a rural high school that did not offer APs and few advanced classes. We did not have college counseling. I took the SAT once (no test prep class) and did well but was not by any means perfect. My mother was a high school drop out and dad was out of the picture. I went to an Ivy. Would you compare me to an Asian who was denied admission and had higher scores and 13 more APs in deciding there was discrimination? I did not check the race box but I have an Hispanic last name. Now what? Would it be ok to admit me over others with higher scores and more rigorous classes because of my circumstances? What sort of “merit” would I be required to have to compete with the plaintiffs in this case? Does it matter that I did the best I could with what I was offered?

No one is challenging the use of geography and SES as admissions factors and almost all college say that students are compared based on what their school offered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain why Asians have to score higher than everyone else on the MCAT and have to have significantly higher GPAs than certain groups in order to get into medical school:



It is literally using race to hold people to different standards. Which is racism.

There is not one school in the country that is saying Asians must have higher scores and GPAs in order to be admitted. Because that WOULD be racism. You're just making that assumption based on others with lower numbers being admitted. But the reason they're admitted is because they offer something else the college values, not because they're not Asian.

They don't have to say, but the numbers clearly show that their actual actions are stating otherwise. Asians have to score higher on the MCAT and have a significantly higher GPA. It is clearly based on their race.

So you think entire teams of admissions officers, plus all the other officials who are aware of their policies, are in on a secret plot to deny admission to Asians? And not one member of those teams has the integrity to come forth and speak the truth, which would lead to a very quick loss in court? If so, you're worse than QAnon.

They are. You are not allowed to speak out against the diversity machine. We're so progressive that we've become racist. Why don't you look into why Asians have been denied at top universities. Soft reasons for why Asians have been denied by admissions officers at Harvard were due to 'personality scores' based on perceptions that an Asian student would probably 'study too much and not do well with team work' or that an Asian student basically had 'no sense of humor'. Basically, Asian students being denied because they were perceived as 'not being able to keep it real'. I mean what kind of BS nonsense is that, other than stereotyping Asian students based on their race. Yes, there is absolutely systemic racism at universities because university admins have no spine to stand up to the diversity and social justice warriors. Diversity doesn't really mean diversity....it only means apply exceptions to the rule for a very, very select group while discriminating against others.

You're swimming in QAnon waters with your conspiracy theory. No one has created a personality test to target a specific population.

Wrong:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

Next you'll try to tell me NYTs is a QAnon source.

Nothing in that article says that the personality test was created to exclude Asian applicants. That's your assumption. It would be ludicrous for anyone to create such a test for such a purpose. Almost every admission officer would refuse to use it, and they would be publicizing the blatant racism inherent in such a practice. On any measure, some group is going to score lowest. That doesn't mean they're being deliberately discriminated against.

You can try to explain away all you want, but no one believes your trash. Harvard *consistently* gave Asians lower 'personality scores' compared to all other racial groups. Of course they'll never admit that it is designed to weed out Asians because they can't do it based on test scores since Asians do far better. They had to come up with other BS ways to cut them out based on soft ideas like their perceived personality. The personality scores strongly correlate with race, which just goes to show you how racist it is. Imagine giving a black student negative personality scores because of a perception that they may 'disrupt the class' or 'be a trouble maker'. How racist would that be? That's the same type of discrimination Asian students have had to eat because of their race.

Absolutely, this is very shameful and Harvard has not apologized. Alum interviewers who actually met the applicants gave them personality scores on par with everyone else. The admissions office personnel gave Asians lower personality scores, which fit into racist tropes about Asians lacking in personality etc. It was absolutely to round out what they wanted in terms of diversity.

I'm not opposed to affirmative action or diversity actually. But Harvard's approach was really gross and it only came out because of discovery in this case (when all those applicant files were turned over).

- Asian Harvard alum

So since you gave quoted reasonings for black students it seems that you are suggesting that there are either direct quotes or stereotypes used to rationalize lower personality scores. Can you elaborate on what those were?

[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:

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.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

I think GPA + Test scores + ECs + Awards + Speical talents + etc. are all good.
I think racism is bad, so change criteria in a manner not discriminate againt race.

this is money + school system. all of it.

[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:

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: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.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

Agreed. They will find another way to get the diversity they seek.

They better find a way to be more careful or they'll just lose the next lawsuit too,

Diversity is not against the law

Using race in admissions is about to be

Yes. But that hardly means they are going to just line up the test scores and admit a class starting at highest and continuing on down. Test scores are not even required as part of the application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But not everyone is given equal opportunity to succeed either. I was top of the class in a rural high school that did not offer APs and few advanced classes. We did not have college counseling. I took the SAT once (no test prep class) and did well but was not by any means perfect. My mother was a high school drop out and dad was out of the picture. I went to an Ivy. Would you compare me to an Asian who was denied admission and had higher scores and 13 more APs in deciding there was discrimination? I did not check the race box but I have an Hispanic last name. Now what? Would it be ok to admit me over others with higher scores and more rigorous classes because of my circumstances? What sort of “merit” would I be required to have to compete with the plaintiffs in this case? Does it matter that I did the best I could with what I was offered?

I'm sure if anything, you got plus points
and those asians kids most likely did their very best they could too like you.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

I think GPA + Test scores + ECs + Awards + Speical talents + etc. are all good.
I think racism is bad, so change criteria in a manner not discriminate againt race.

this is money + school system. all of it.

Poor schools serving poor students still give A and offer ECs

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope, they don't change the law.
Law makers change the law.

Yes, they do. When the overturn settled precedent, they are changing the law.

No, they can overturn precedent because it violates Constitution.
It's not making law.

And when that happens and there are no people of certain races admitted to elite colleges, then they sue, and win, (because that is absolute proof of systemic societal racism) what happens then?

No it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism.

NBA has only 0.4% of Asians.
Is that absolute proof of systemic societal racism?

The NBA argument? Really? That's all you got?

Dumbest argument ever.

Try again.

I'm interested. Why NBA shouldn't be diverse to reflect population?

No, you are humping a strawman which is entirely irrelevant for reasons you absolutely know, and I won't engage to allow you to gish gallop past the relevant point. Stop being pathetic. Try yet again.

Nope, PP has a very relevant point. Why is there a severe lack of diversity in a billion dollar industry like the NBA? Hardly any Hispanics, Asians, etc. Why is the NBA exempt from diversity that reflects the country?


Oh that's right, because the NBA only wants the best players based on their merits regardless of their race. Funny how that works in a billion dollars sports industry, yet we don't apply the same logic at universities.

Sigh. Go ahead, join in on the stupid.

There have been many instances of racism in employment in professional sports throughout history. Maybe you've heard of Jackie Robinson?

Stupid, stupid argument. Please don't make this point where people know who you are. I tell you this for your own good.

Yes racism is bad.
Also it's not absolute proof of systemic societal racism just because a certain race is severely underrepresented.

Is a diverse class important? That is subjective. In Harvard's view, it is valuable. It is not against the law to believe this is an important attribute of a class. If they need to change their criteria to achieve that, ok.

You think the highest test scores are the most valuable criteria but that is also subjective.

I think GPA + Test scores + ECs + Awards + Speical talents + etc. are all good.
I think racism is bad, so change criteria in a manner not discriminate againt race.

this is money + school system. all of it.

What do you want to add?
Race?