NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

Of course not. The answer is for Black people to prioritize education, study hard and compete. Even if the playing field isn’t fair, which is true for many groups. This is society’s problem, but it is not society’s problem to solve. It’s a Black problem with a Black solution.

The blacks getting into the highly selective colleges are doing just that: prioritizing education, studying hard, and competing. And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

They are, but if racial discrimination is banned, gender discrimination will be too. Something that benefits current students doesn't necessarily benefit applicants the same way.

What’s your thought process? Race is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex is not.

That's irrelevant. Tech companies today have initiatives specifically to hire women or URM. If the initiatives for URM are discriminatory, the same holds true for women.

Clearly you are not a lawyer or at least not one that did well in Con Law

Refute it then.

Race is subject to strict scrutiny, gender is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is an almost impossible standard, intermediate isn’t

Why is more women in STEM a substantial government interest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

Of course not. The answer is for Black people to prioritize education, study hard and compete. Even if the playing field isn’t fair, which is true for many groups. This is society’s problem, but it is not society’s problem to solve. It’s a Black problem with a Black solution.

I like this logic. The next time I run someone over with my car I’ll tell them the solution was for them to have prioritized getting out of my way. Even though it is unfair to hit them with a two ton vehicle that’s not my problem to solve. It’s their problem.

You would hopefully agree that the most important question is not who is at fault, but what is the most effective way to avoid an accident. That is the analogy here. Our society is at fault. That doesn't mean that we can fix the problem.

[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:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

I am the customer. I am full-pay for multiple kids. I get to choose who gets my money. Others have the same choice. If a school wants that money, they better provide the product I want. Otherwise that money goes to their competitor.

Ok, how much are you paying per year. How much is a football team making from season ticket holders, their conference's TV deal, even donors who only care about football or basketball?

For the elite D3 schools with sports, it's the full-paying customers like me that ensure sports always be there. Those schools will need to ensure that their teams are filled, and athletes will have a preference in admissions.

Money is money. The schools can collect it from the nerds as easily as the jocks.

Feel free to start a nerd school and let us know how it goes. If anyone agreed with you, the market would drive these schools to be "nerd schools". Seems like one Olin is enough to satisfy the need.

What? Who do you think attends the top 20 schools, jocks? Most high school jocks don't even attend college.

T20s tend to be small private schools which tend to have very high percentages of students who are jocks. If you care about elite SLACs, at Williams a third of students are athletes.

Students at Williams definitely are not jocks. They are nerds that happen to play some sports.

Look at the Williams Football team. They would get beaten by the average public high school team.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and you’re completely wrong.

This. Kids playing NESAC were most likely the best athletes on their high school teams and possibly their club teams.

Even if this were somehow true (they attended magnets/prep schools), it still does not make them jocks.

Let's look at the definition of jocks:

In the United States and Canada, a jock is a stereotype of an athlete, or someone who is primarily interested in sports and sports culture, and does not take much interest in intellectual activity

Magnets and top prep schools don't have jocks because it requires testing in and they fail students out.
Jocks from the not-as-good prep schools are not getting into Williams. They end up at large state schools like Wisconsin, etc.

Its fun when you find definitions to fit your argument. According to dictionary.com, the definition isn’t quite so detailed ‘Informal. an athlete.’

The definition is from Wikipedia and by any definition, more accurate than just an "athlete".

Median Webster: ATHLETE sense 1 especially : a school or college athlete

Again, its much easier when you can define words to fit your argument, but that doesn’t mean that the word actually has that meaning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

Of course not. The answer is for Black people to prioritize education, study hard and compete. Even if the playing field isn’t fair, which is true for many groups. This is society’s problem, but it is not society’s problem to solve. It’s a Black problem with a Black solution.

The blacks getting into the highly selective colleges are doing just that: prioritizing education, studying hard, and competing. And?

Of course. But not on average, which is what matters. See, e.g., https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214221101422

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And any of that would be bad why?

Because college is about learning from all sorts of different students, not just from the professors and the textbooks.

You don't need to attend college to learn about different peoples. Just move to NYC and work in a customer facing role and go out at night, you will meet people from all walks of life. A much more diverse group of people than 18-22 UMC where a few of the UMC have dark skin. Also, in most colleges everyone simply clusters with their own race/background anyways, and that includes the POC.

This entire propaganda about college being about learning from/about people more so than professors/textbooks is how colleges hike tuition and sell the "college experience".

Of course you can't learn the same coursework online. Of course you have to live on campus instead of commuting. Think about all the people you will meet!

Reality doesn't care about your snarky cynicism.

So you think that in reality, attending of a school of 2,000 - 6,000 18-22 UMC kids in a suburban/rural environment has more diversity than a city of 8+ million that's known for being the entry point for immigration to the US throughout history, consisting of people of all age groups and socioeconomic backgrounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

^ too dumb to Google the countless arguments that refute your inane "point"?

For example

https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2019/01/11/sports-leadership/

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were both linemen. Eisenhower played both linebacker and running back.

That's an interesting point, because Ford and Reagan were absolutely abysmal leaders and presidents.

But I'm sure Eisenhower was such a great leader and president because he played linebacker/running back in high school, and not because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII.

Not sure what cave you live in, but outside the DC bubble Reagan is seen as one of the most impressive and successful US Presidents ever.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

^ too dumb to Google the countless arguments that refute your inane "point"?

For example

https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2019/01/11/sports-leadership/

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were both linemen. Eisenhower played both linebacker and running back.

That's an interesting point, because Ford and Reagan were absolutely abysmal leaders and presidents.

But I'm sure Eisenhower was such a great leader and president because he played linebacker/running back in high school, and not because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII.

Um, they all played football in college. And what makes you so sure Eisenhower got none of his military leadership skills from his experience playing football?

What about all the other high school and college football players, did they also become Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and POTUS?

[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:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

They are, but if racial discrimination is banned, gender discrimination will be too. Something that benefits current students doesn't necessarily benefit applicants the same way.

What’s your thought process? Race is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex is not.

That's irrelevant. Tech companies today have initiatives specifically to hire women or URM. If the initiatives for URM are discriminatory, the same holds true for women.

Clearly you are not a lawyer or at least not one that did well in Con Law

Refute it then.

Race is subject to strict scrutiny, gender is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is an almost impossible standard, intermediate isn’t

Why is more women in STEM a substantial government interest?
[/quo


Posters here are so stupid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

Of course not. The answer is for Black people to prioritize education, study hard and compete. Even if the playing field isn’t fair, which is true for many groups. This is society’s problem, but it is not society’s problem to solve. It’s a Black problem with a Black solution.

I like this logic. The next time I run someone over with my car I’ll tell them the solution was for them to have prioritized getting out of my way. Even though it is unfair to hit them with a two ton vehicle that’s not my problem to solve. It’s their problem.

You would hopefully agree that the most important question is not who is at fault, but what is the most effective way to avoid an accident. That is the analogy here. Our society is at fault. That doesn't mean that we can fix the problem.

When the accident had already happened, our entire justice system is geared towards determining who is at fault. If society is at fault, then it’s up to society to fix it. Or do you only believe in responsibility and accountability for the victims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

^ too dumb to Google the countless arguments that refute your inane "point"?

For example

https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2019/01/11/sports-leadership/

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were both linemen. Eisenhower played both linebacker and running back.

That's an interesting point, because Ford and Reagan were absolutely abysmal leaders and presidents.

But I'm sure Eisenhower was such a great leader and president because he played linebacker/running back in high school, and not because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII.

Not sure what cave you live in, but outside the DC bubble Reagan is seen as one of the most impressive and successful US Presidents ever.

Reagan had Alzheimers throughout his time as president and most of the decisions were made by his cronies. You actually made me wonder if he developed Alzheimers in part due to playing as a linemen in his youth.

mhe didn’t have Alzheimer’s throughout his time as President . You apparently don’t even know he served two terms, 8 years. Go learn some history. Biden is far worse (dementia) than Reagan ever was and I was serving here in government during Reagan so I actually know what I’m talking about. Where were you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

^ too dumb to Google the countless arguments that refute your inane "point"?

For example

https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2019/01/11/sports-leadership/

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were both linemen. Eisenhower played both linebacker and running back.

That's an interesting point, because Ford and Reagan were absolutely abysmal leaders and presidents.

But I'm sure Eisenhower was such a great leader and president because he played linebacker/running back in high school, and not because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII.

Um, they all played football in college. And what makes you so sure Eisenhower got none of his military leadership skills from his experience playing football?

What about all the other high school and college football players, did they also become Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and POTUS?

Not sure but I hear Gandhi was a hell of a cornerback back in the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

Of course not. The answer is for Black people to prioritize education, study hard and compete. Even if the playing field isn’t fair, which is true for many groups. This is society’s problem, but it is not society’s problem to solve. It’s a Black problem with a Black solution.

I like this logic. The next time I run someone over with my car I’ll tell them the solution was for them to have prioritized getting out of my way. Even though it is unfair to hit them with a two ton vehicle that’s not my problem to solve. It’s their problem.

You would hopefully agree that the most important question is not who is at fault, but what is the most effective way to avoid an accident. That is the analogy here. Our society is at fault. That doesn't mean that we can fix the problem.

When the accident had already happened, our entire justice system is geared towards determining who is at fault. If society is at fault, then it’s up to society to fix it. Or do you only believe in responsibility and accountability for the victims?

Justice and effectiveness are two different matters. On justice / fault, we agree. On effectiveness, there is really only so much that external help can do. To continue your analogy, you got hit by a car. You're in a hospital doing therapy. It sucks that it's true, and it's not fair, but really the only way for that therapy to work is for you to put in the effort. It has to be you, nobody else can do it. Again, concede not fair. That's not the point.

[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:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

^ too dumb to Google the countless arguments that refute your inane "point"?

For example

https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2019/01/11/sports-leadership/

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were both linemen. Eisenhower played both linebacker and running back.

That's an interesting point, because Ford and Reagan were absolutely abysmal leaders and presidents.

But I'm sure Eisenhower was such a great leader and president because he played linebacker/running back in high school, and not because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII.

Not sure what cave you live in, but outside the DC bubble Reagan is seen as one of the most impressive and successful US Presidents ever.

Reagan had Alzheimers throughout his time as president and most of the decisions were made by his cronies. You actually made me wonder if he developed Alzheimers in part due to playing as a linemen in his youth.

mhe didn’t have Alzheimer’s throughout his time as President . You apparently don’t even know he served two terms, 8 years. Go learn some history. Biden is far worse (dementia) than Reagan ever was and I was serving here in government during Reagan so I actually know what I’m talking about. Where were you?

PP is probably 16.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

Of course not. The answer is for Black people to prioritize education, study hard and compete. Even if the playing field isn’t fair, which is true for many groups. This is society’s problem, but it is not society’s problem to solve. It’s a Black problem with a Black solution.

I like this logic. The next time I run someone over with my car I’ll tell them the solution was for them to have prioritized getting out of my way. Even though it is unfair to hit them with a two ton vehicle that’s not my problem to solve. It’s their problem.

Who's running over black people with cars? Asian students?

Well PP already admitted it’s a problem. But for kicks let’s say you.