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

[Anonymous]

Liberal/Leftist

Disparity equals discrimination. To prove discrimination you just have to show disparity between POC outcomes and white outcomes. That provides prima facie evidence of discrimination (Voting rights, criminal justice and many other categories)

Me:

Hmm, so what about the consistent disparity in personality scores given by Harvard to Asians compared to other races? (The district court found quote, ‘a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers.’)

Liberal: (Read Waxman, Harvard lawyer) "the record will not allow a full explanation for that." .... "But we don't discriminate"

Such duplicity. Such Hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Black SAT scores rise discontinuously in 2023.

Prediction: test optional becomes the norm in 2023 and SAT scores become even LESS relevant.

A lot of students won't take the SAT/ ACT.

Totally wrong.
Most students will take the test multiple times, and if scores are low, then hide it.

The SAT will become less relevant. Already headed in that direction ( posters citing MIT won't change that).

The UMC whites and Asians will spend on test prep and take the test multiple times. Most URMs and/or first gens will not. And they'll still get accepted because of their academic profile , ECs and essays AND for diversity.

Not much will change. The elite colleges will still fill their classes the way they want.

[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.

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

Really? Do you want to compare ECs in poor and wealthy areas? You know what I want- I want there to be a registry for classes/tutoring/test prep and each test prep/tutoring you get puts you in a demographic of your own so you are only compared against those same kids. Same with how many times you take it. Kids who take it 3 times with 4 prep classes should not be in the same cohort as a kid who takes it once with no prep. Special talents and ECs? Those take time, investment, and funding. Awards? Ppft.

[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.

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

No. This is not correct. The number and quality of ECs are related to the school budget.

Look at a big science reseaech competition for example .....the same schools consistently send students to the semi finals and finals of these events with few exceptions. These schools have quality funded science research programs available to the students at the school.

[Anonymous]

All the categories that help or are likely to help Republicans (geographic diversity, viewpoint diversity, economic diversity, legacies) will be preserved.

This Supreme Court could not be more transparent in its quest to come out on the Republican side on every issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Black SAT scores rise discontinuously in 2023.

Prediction: test optional becomes the norm in 2023 and SAT scores become even LESS relevant.

A lot of students won't take the SAT/ ACT.

Totally wrong.
Most students will take the test multiple times, and if scores are low, then hide it.

The SAT will become less relevant. Already headed in that direction ( posters citing MIT won't change that).

The UMC whites and Asians will spend on test prep and take the test multiple times. Most URMs and/or first gens will not. And they'll still get accepted because of their academic profile , ECs and essays AND for diversity.

Not much will change. The elite colleges will still fill their classes the way they want.

Why would most URMs pass the good chance to see if they also get high score and use it??????????????

[Anonymous]

But if they can't blame URMs, who will DCUM point the finger at for taking their kids' spots at Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Black SAT scores rise discontinuously in 2023.

Prediction: test optional becomes the norm in 2023 and SAT scores become even LESS relevant.

A lot of students won't take the SAT/ ACT.

Totally wrong.
Most students will take the test multiple times, and if scores are low, then hide it.

The SAT will become less relevant. Already headed in that direction ( posters citing MIT won't change that).

The UMC whites and Asians will spend on test prep and take the test multiple times. Most URMs and/or first gens will not. And they'll still get accepted because of their academic profile , ECs and essays AND for diversity.

Not much will change. The elite colleges will still fill their classes the way they want.

Why would most URMs pass the good chance to see if they also get high score and use it??????????????

use it to beat other competing URMs
URM + high score would be money in the bank
Why pass that opportunity???????????????????????????????????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if they can't blame URMs, who will DCUM point the finger at for taking their kids' spots at Harvard?

Legacy is the next target

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: Black SAT scores rise discontinuously in 2023.

Prediction: test optional becomes the norm in 2023 and SAT scores become even LESS relevant.

A lot of students won't take the SAT/ ACT.

Totally wrong.
Most students will take the test multiple times, and if scores are low, then hide it.

The SAT will become less relevant. Already headed in that direction ( posters citing MIT won't change that).

The UMC whites and Asians will spend on test prep and take the test multiple times. Most URMs and/or first gens will not. And they'll still get accepted because of their academic profile , ECs and essays AND for diversity.

Not much will change. The elite colleges will still fill their classes the way they want.

Why would most URMs pass the good chance to see if they also get high score and use it??????????????

Yeah… I thought test scores help the URMs more than GPAs.

[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

NP Yes, it looks that way. Colleges can look to the states that have already made it illegal. The UCs found a way to diversity students when their numbers dropped due to the new law of not allowing race based admissions. Colleges already have a successful blueprint to use and keep things legal. Everybody wins.

[Anonymous]

This thread is too long to read, but my opinion is that AA should be removed because it always makes the minorities "less than". I mean that they are always perceived to have been given an unfair leg up and the perception (often incorrect) is that they were only admitted because they were Black etc. Many of these kids are equally as smart as other kids and don not deserve any kind of asterix next to their name.
I think the playing field should be level so it is known that everyone there has earned their spot. Maybe AA was required years ago when there really was a different in opportunity but now there are so many qualified minorities and access to testing materials is free (Khan Academy) for anyone who wants it, so I don't think AA is required anymore. It is outdated in my opinion and I actually think it does more damage than good by being divisive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if they can't blame URMs, who will DCUM point the finger at for taking their kids' spots at Harvard?

Asians. The Asians thought they were white adjacent. Hahahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberal/Leftist

Disparity equals discrimination. To prove discrimination you just have to show disparity between POC outcomes and white outcomes. That provides prima facie evidence of discrimination (Voting rights, criminal justice and many other categories)

Me:

Hmm, so what about the consistent disparity in personality scores given by Harvard to Asians compared to other races? (The district court found quote, ‘a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers.’)

Liberal: (Read Waxman, Harvard lawyer) "the record will not allow a full explanation for that." .... "But we don't discriminate"

Such duplicity. Such Hypocrisy.

This one is hard because it's an opinion. They may have truly thought the applicant wasn't a good fit or they may have used it to reduce the numbers. Hard to say with the data presented. If there was a more concrete measure it would be easier to link to discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal/Leftist

Disparity equals discrimination. To prove discrimination you just have to show disparity between POC outcomes and white outcomes. That provides prima facie evidence of discrimination (Voting rights, criminal justice and many other categories)

Me:

Hmm, so what about the consistent disparity in personality scores given by Harvard to Asians compared to other races? (The district court found quote, ‘a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers.’)

Liberal: (Read Waxman, Harvard lawyer) "the record will not allow a full explanation for that." .... "But we don't discriminate"

Such duplicity. Such Hypocrisy.

This one is hard because it's an opinion. They may have truly thought the applicant wasn't a good fit or they may have used it to reduce the numbers. Hard to say with the data presented. If there was a more concrete measure it would be easier to link to discrimination.

What? It's not just "the applicant" like singular. It's a statistically significant difference. It's quantifiable.