SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what are the "laws of America"?

The Supreme Court's ruling is not a "law." They are part of the judicial branch, which interprets laws. The legislative branch makes laws.

How about no racial discrimination

Cite the statute.

The 14th amendment of the Constitution of the united states.

The plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about racial discrimination or Asians. Try again.

You know the SFFA v Harvard case was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment right?

NP. Yes but you don't understand what the decision said. You seem to think that it said that school now must look *exclusively* at quantitative academic metrics for determining admissions. But that's not what it said.

The decision forces schools to eliminate race as a factor that can be used to increase a candidate's application scoring. The decision found that because schools were giving scoring points to candidates of some races and not others and because the reasoning used by schools to determine which races received these points was inconsistent and unclear then the use of the this mechanism in admissions violated the 14th amendment.

However the decision does not prevent schools from considering the diversity of incoming classes in making admissions decisions. This means that schools may still consider race in admissions in a holistic way in order to put together a class that roughly reflects the racial demographics of the US or the state in which they are occupied. They just cannot award any individual candidate points towards admission for their race.

The reality of this is that it is still 100% legal for Harvard to decide that it seek to racially balance it's classes in such a way that no race is overrepresented as compared to the general population. The impact is that this results in virtually no change to the percentages of AAPI students admitted to these schools. The schools are not required to fill their classes with AAPI students simply because there are more such candidates with top academic credentials. Because schools may still legally look at qualitative measures for admission including the demographic balance of the incoming class.

So please stop acting like schools that don't immediately have 70% AAPI populations and are still looking at qualitative measures for admission are violating the law. They are not. As long as they are not giving students of any race extra points for race in making admissions decisions they are complying with the supreme court decision. That is all it changed.

+1
All this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The decision forces schools to eliminate race as a factor"

"This means that schools may still consider race in admissions"

You are contradicting yourself.

Admissions have been holistic since around 1940s.
(they started this to suppress number of Jews but that's another story)
It was pointed out million times that Asians excel in leadership, ECs, interviews, ec. all that holistic stuff.
So Asians are perfectly fine with holistic admissions.

Colleges are looking at the class holistically too though. They want a broad based class.

Yes, holistically without using race.

[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 feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

Why can’t they accept that maybe they aren’t the best applicants…

I know you have trouble comprehending this, but actually we are not all the same

+1 There is so much Asian bashing on this forum. I hope it's just a few ignorant losers, but I suspect it's more than that.

Some Blacks are bitter because they see immigrant group after immigrant group leapfrog their community to prosperity and now they are losing racial preferences too.

Some Whites are bitter because they're losing their privilege with access to exclusive places and high paying jobs and now people cross the street when they see a bunch of young white men hanging out on the sidewalk.

Hispanics are just angling for the fastest climb up that ladder, they know they are going to get there but they'd like to see it for their children rather than their grandchildren or great grand children. They are on a typical generational immigrant pathway to the american dream.

Asians are just tired of being used as the pressure valve for the costs of progressive social policies to remedy injustices they had no hand in creating

This forum lets you say what ever about black people and nothing at all about Asian people…

Say what you want as long as it's true.

We still think there’s something wrong with the kids rather than recognizing their something wrong with the tests,"

"Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools."

There's nothing wrong with the tests.
There's nothing wrong with you.
Study harder.
Earn it.
Don't rely on the guilt and pity of white people to get you something you didn't earn.

The data says differently, but of course you are entitled to your opinion.

No, it doesn't.

The data says that the tests are excellent measures of not only college performance but all sorts of outcomes.
The research on this is so well accepted that it is at least as well established as global warming.

Anyone telling you different is trying to push an agenda.

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

[Anonymous]

People go to college for more than academics. They want connections and maybe to meet life partners. Going to a 50% Asian school won't help them achieve these additional goals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not their skin color that disqualifies them, it's the test scores.

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

Find graduation rates by race/ethnicity at Ivies and other top 25 schools and get back to me. Negligible difference. It's about getting IN the college and there are thousands of applicants that are qualified.

When all the graduation rates are ~100%, the graduation rates are meaningless. They carry everyone over that finish line.

80% of the white men admitted to STEM majors graduate with STEM degrees.
80% of the black men admitted into STEM majors do NOT graduate with STEM degrees.

They would likely have graduated with a STEM degree from a lower ranked school but they are in over their heads when you accept them with SAT scores so much lower than their classmates, their primary role at these colleges seems to be to fill up the bottom end of the curve.

And to your original (but misguided) point, it's skin color that caused the systemic discrimination in the first place....

And what discrimination did hispanics suffer that asians did not?

And affirmative action in college admissions is specifically NOT supposed to be about correcting for past or current discrimination.

Graduation rates are meaningless? Huh?

Moving the goalposts to STEM degrees now. You must be the silly Asian troll poster from yesteryear.

Who the heck set the goalposts at graduation rates? Graduation rates are a stupid metric when the graduation rate is ~100% for everyone and it makes your argument look exceedingly weak that you have to insist on such a silly goalpost to make things look equal.

The only goalposts I've seen here are college GPAs. I don't think you want to do that. What percentage of black students graduate cum laude, magna cum laude and summa cum laude from these schools compared to other races? What percentage of black students spend at least one year on academic probation compared to other races?

Moving goalposts again. From STEM majors to levels of academic recognition upon graduation. Give it up.

The grievance and whining and frivolous lawsuits ( after 3 political hacks are appointed to the SCOTUS) about "discrimination " are about college admissions ( let me make it very clear for you....before anyone graduates or definitively selects a major, STEM or otherwise).

Furthermore, it's about college admissions to elite and selective colleges. No one is fussing about UC San Diego which happens to have a ton of Asian American students, if not the most.

You're not doing your argument any favors

Most engineering schools require you to apply to the engineering school.
At these selective schools...
Of the black men that get into the engineering school 80% of them decide to drop out of engineering and pursue some other degree.
Of the white men that get into the engineering school 80% graduate with an engineering degree.

The rate of black graduates at highly selective colleges receiving graduation honors is insignificant.
The rate of black students at these colleges on academic probation is very high.

Using graduation rate (which is about 100% for everyone of all races) as an indicator that all the students are equal is stupid. Everyone that is following this thread knows it's stupid and they are embarrassed for you.

But, at least we agree that we are only talking about the top 5% of colleges. Noone is using racial preferences to achieve diversity at Radford. Noone is getting shut out of college, they're not even getting shut out of ivy+. Their population is just shrinking in half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what are the "laws of America"?

The Supreme Court's ruling is not a "law." They are part of the judicial branch, which interprets laws. The legislative branch makes laws.

How about no racial discrimination

Cite the statute.

The 14th amendment of the Constitution of the united states.

The plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about racial discrimination or Asians. Try again.

You know the SFFA v Harvard case was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment right?

NP. Yes but you don't understand what the decision said. You seem to think that it said that school now must look *exclusively* at quantitative academic metrics for determining admissions. But that's not what it said.

The decision forces schools to eliminate race as a factor that can be used to increase a candidate's application scoring. The decision found that because schools were giving scoring points to candidates of some races and not others and because the reasoning used by schools to determine which races received these points was inconsistent and unclear then the use of the this mechanism in admissions violated the 14th amendment.

However the decision does not prevent schools from considering the diversity of incoming classes in making admissions decisions. This means that schools may still consider race in admissions in a holistic way in order to put together a class that roughly reflects the racial demographics of the US or the state in which they are occupied. They just cannot award any individual candidate points towards admission for their race.

The reality of this is that it is still 100% legal for Harvard to decide that it seek to racially balance it's classes in such a way that no race is overrepresented as compared to the general population. The impact is that this results in virtually no change to the percentages of AAPI students admitted to these schools. The schools are not required to fill their classes with AAPI students simply because there are more such candidates with top academic credentials. Because schools may still legally look at qualitative measures for admission including the demographic balance of the incoming class.

So please stop acting like schools that don't immediately have 70% AAPI populations and are still looking at qualitative measures for admission are violating the law. They are not. As long as they are not giving students of any race extra points for race in making admissions decisions they are complying with the supreme court decision. That is all it changed.

Point to the part where I say that SFFA mandates the schools "must look *exclusively* at quantitative academic metrics"
I don't think I do.

I said you can't use race and if you are using any of the other holistic factors as a proxy for race, you can't do that either.
And if you keep doing it, you might:
1. lose the ability to use those holistic factors because we cannot trust you to stop being racist;
2. lose your 501(c)(3) status because you can't be a racist non-profit;
3. lose your federal funding because federal funding can't fund racist institutions.

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

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

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

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

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

But…colleges don’t keep this information. They assign scores to these essays and move on. Much in the same way Harvard’s case was decided by the deltas in points compared to interview scores. What organization keeps 1000s of essays just lying around?

The Common App is a massive database holding everything. Everything submitted by the student. Everything shared by the College Board. Every letter written by teachers, etc. That is where SFFA will have to go to get it all. Nothing ever gets deleted from the internet. So if there is something sensitive in an applicants essays or in a letter-of-recommendation it will be exposed during discovery.

https://www.commonapp.org/counselors-and-recommenders/recommender-guide

Seems like a security concern. I don’t think anyone should be applying to a system that up and forfeits their info to a bunch of randoms obsessed with race.

Yes, I would have huge issues with this. I feel like Asians are trying to turn our college system into what exists in China or India. I don’t want that.

or UK, Germany, France etc. pretty much rest of the world that has more clear and fair rules and standards

Then I wonder why people from all over the world still come to the US for college and why a US college education continues to be considered so valuable.

The thing is, outside a handful of highly competitive schools in the US, admissions ARE very compliant and largely based on GPA and test scores. It's just at a small number of private, highly selective colleges, the process is opaque because they have way more people with sufficiently high quantitative metrics than they have spots. So they use a qualitative approach that is necessarily squishy and places a high value on metrics like "fit" and "class balance" and "character."

And what some of you who are enraged about this don't understand is that these qualitative metrics lead to desirable learning environments for many people, and if admissions was purely based on test scores, many people would value it less.

Why do you think that is?

Until around WWII, US colleges were regarded as 2nd 3rd tier schools. People from all over the world went to Europe.
Real talents form US who want to really study and research further went to schools in UK, Germany, France.
It a combination of many factors and the economical, political, cultural power of the country play big roles.

Again, nobody really says anything like 'purely based on test scores.'
There has been clearly a discriminatory practice that they required much higher standards from Asians.
This cannot be tolerated, and the US Supreme Court ruled it.
Now you get it?

No you don't get it.

Asian applicants in the US focus on maximizing test scores and grades in the hardest possible classes because this is what universities in Asia -- and Asian culture -- rewards. The reason people from other backgrounds do not do this by enrolling kids in test prep and tutoring at young ages and drilling them at home and seeking out schools with the most homework and academic rigor and toughest grading is that this is not what everyone values. In fact it is not even what American universities -- even the elite ones -- value in applicants. Yes they expect people high GPAs and test scores which means there's a minimum below which they will not consider a student. But these are screening tools only -- they are not considered the final determination on whether someone is right for Harvard or UVA or Brown or whatever. They are literally just the minimum academic credentials. The are looking for other qualities that CANNOT be measured by standardized tests or GPA: leadership and independent thinking and creativity and other qualitative measures. These are not things that can be measured by a standardized test and that is why admissions committees also look closely at essays and teacher recommendations and extra-curricular activities. It's not a scam to exclude Asian applicants. It's just genuinely what they value and AAPI applicants who offer this kind of whole package tend to do very well in applying to top schools. They are not automatic admits because no one is. There are also many "whole package" white students who don't get admitted. That's because there are many many white and AAPI students with these qualities (including high GPAs and test scores) and schools are essentially choosing among them. It's not "unfair" -- it's the reality of having only a small number of slots for a very large number of qualified applicants.

You want to impose the admissions standards of a Chinese or Indian university on an American system that has a totally different value structure. The answer is: no. In the US we value other things that simply the ability to ace a test. That's useful but not sufficient and our most elite schools also look for students with other qualities. If you don't like this then perhaps these schools are not the right fit.

Also you seem to misunderstand the Supreme Court ruling. While schools cannot score race as a factor in admissions anymore this does not mean they are obligated to simply take the highest scoring applicants. They can -- as they always have -- evaluate qualitative measures such as leadership and creativity and community service. They can also look at "fit" for the university culture and look at "balance" in the class in terms of background (not explicitly race but things like where people are from and the kind of upbringing they have which wind up being proxies for race). This will continue to make it hard for the large numbers of AAPI applicants from very similar backgrounds who all apply to the same schools as they will continue to compete against one another for spots because they are (at the direction of their parents) all presenting a very similar student profile to admissions committees. These schools do not want a bunch of identical students attending. They want classes with diversity of background and experience even if everyone is expected to have impressive academic credentials. This means that high achieving AAPI applicants from certain cities and suburbs all graduating from the same schools with the same extra-curriculars and career goals will continue to lose spots to like some kid from Santa Fe who works on a ranch in the summers and learned to speak Navajo from a relative as a kid (but who also has straight As and a 1570 SAT and 5s on multiple APs). The fact that you think this is unfair (because the AAPI candidate had a 1590 and took more AP classes and has a higher GPA) is just evidence that you still don't understand how these universities work and what they want in a candidate.

+1000

If you want the China/India system, go apply to schools there.
But in the USA, schools value other things. Yes, you must make the basic cut, but once you do that, grades/scores don't matter.

Also, top schools recognize that a kid from inner city X, with a 1480, 4.0UW, and all the APs that are offered (2) but who has leadership and drive, is likely just as talented as your 1590/4.0UW/15 AP kid, but they haven't had all the privileges in life. Who are you to say they are not as equally talented?

The problem isn't inner city vs suburbs, the problem is rich black kids getting a preference over poor white kids purely because of skin color.

I would not define the "problem" this narrowly but I do think that one of the upshots of the decision is that it will force schools to treat highly privileged urm candidates more like highly privileged white candidates in admissions and this is probably a good thing. This was the aspect of affirmative action that made the least sense in 2024 for where the kind of racism that even wealthy and privileged minorities used to experience with regards to hiring and access to capital and housing no longer really exists. There is still racism against wealthy urm but it does not tend to restrict access to jobs or schools.

If the result of this decision is that schools switch from using race-based affirmative action to class-based affirmative action I think ultimately it will be beneficial for society. Though I'm skeptical this will be the case -- rich people of all races are not going to stand for spots at Ivies going to rural whites and inner-city blacks and low-income Hispanic and Asian immigrant kids.

Plenty of poor asian kids at ivy+ Just look at stuyvesant's graduating class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not their skin color that disqualifies them, it's the test scores.

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

Find graduation rates by race/ethnicity at Ivies and other top 25 schools and get back to me. Negligible difference. It's about getting IN the college and there are thousands of applicants that are qualified.

When all the graduation rates are ~100%, the graduation rates are meaningless. They carry everyone over that finish line.

80% of the white men admitted to STEM majors graduate with STEM degrees.
80% of the black men admitted into STEM majors do NOT graduate with STEM degrees.

They would likely have graduated with a STEM degree from a lower ranked school but they are in over their heads when you accept them with SAT scores so much lower than their classmates, their primary role at these colleges seems to be to fill up the bottom end of the curve.

And to your original (but misguided) point, it's skin color that caused the systemic discrimination in the first place....

And what discrimination did hispanics suffer that asians did not?

And affirmative action in college admissions is specifically NOT supposed to be about correcting for past or current discrimination.

Graduation rates are meaningless? Huh?

Moving the goalposts to STEM degrees now. You must be the silly Asian troll poster from yesteryear.

Who the heck set the goalposts at graduation rates? Graduation rates are a stupid metric when the graduation rate is ~100% for everyone and it makes your argument look exceedingly weak that you have to insist on such a silly goalpost to make things look equal.

The only goalposts I've seen here are college GPAs. I don't think you want to do that. What percentage of black students graduate cum laude, magna cum laude and summa cum laude from these schools compared to other races? What percentage of black students spend at least one year on academic probation compared to other races?

Moving goalposts again. From STEM majors to levels of academic recognition upon graduation. Give it up.

The grievance and whining and frivolous lawsuits ( after 3 political hacks are appointed to the SCOTUS) about "discrimination " are about college admissions ( let me make it very clear for you....before anyone graduates or definitively selects a major, STEM or otherwise).

Furthermore, it's about college admissions to elite and selective colleges. No one is fussing about UC San Diego which happens to have a ton of Asian American students, if not the most.

You're not doing your argument any favors

Most engineering schools require you to apply to the engineering school.
At these selective schools...
Of the black men that get into the engineering school 80% of them decide to drop out of engineering and pursue some other degree.
Of the white men that get into the engineering school 80% graduate with an engineering degree.

The rate of black graduates at highly selective colleges receiving graduation honors is insignificant.
The rate of black students at these colleges on academic probation is very high.

Using graduation rate (which is about 100% for everyone of all races) as an indicator that all the students are equal is stupid. Everyone that is following this thread knows it's stupid and they are embarrassed for you.

But, at least we agree that we are only talking about the top 5% of colleges. Noone is using racial preferences to achieve diversity at Radford. Noone is getting shut out of college, they're not even getting shut out of ivy+. Their population is just shrinking in half.

Noone isn’t a word and yet you use it over and over in all your posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The decision forces schools to eliminate race as a factor"

"This means that schools may still consider race in admissions"

You are contradicting yourself.

Admissions have been holistic since around 1940s.
(they started this to suppress number of Jews but that's another story)
It was pointed out million times that Asians excel in leadership, ECs, interviews, ec. all that holistic stuff.
So Asians are perfectly fine with holistic admissions.

Colleges are looking at the class holistically too though. They want a broad based class.

ANd they can have that, they just can't have race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People go to college for more than academics. They want connections and maybe to meet life partners. Going to a 50% Asian school won't help them achieve these additional goals.

Why 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:I feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

Why can’t they accept that maybe they aren’t the best applicants…

I know you have trouble comprehending this, but actually we are not all the same

+1 There is so much Asian bashing on this forum. I hope it's just a few ignorant losers, but I suspect it's more than that.

Some Blacks are bitter because they see immigrant group after immigrant group leapfrog their community to prosperity and now they are losing racial preferences too.

Some Whites are bitter because they're losing their privilege with access to exclusive places and high paying jobs and now people cross the street when they see a bunch of young white men hanging out on the sidewalk.

Hispanics are just angling for the fastest climb up that ladder, they know they are going to get there but they'd like to see it for their children rather than their grandchildren or great grand children. They are on a typical generational immigrant pathway to the american dream.

Asians are just tired of being used as the pressure valve for the costs of progressive social policies to remedy injustices they had no hand in creating

This forum lets you say what ever about black people and nothing at all about Asian people…

Say what you want as long as it's true.

We still think there’s something wrong with the kids rather than recognizing their something wrong with the tests,"

"Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools."

There's nothing wrong with the tests.
There's nothing wrong with you.
Study harder.
Earn it.
Don't rely on the guilt and pity of white people to get you something you didn't earn.

The data says differently, but of course you are entitled to your opinion.

No, it doesn't.

The data says that the tests are excellent measures of not only college performance but all sorts of outcomes.
The research on this is so well accepted that it is at least as well established as global warming.

Anyone telling you different is trying to push an agenda.

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

Data also shows that the test are biased. That is one of the reasons colleges don't want only high GPA, high SAT kids. Some have figured out how to follow the law and maintain diversity. It won't take long for the others to get back to the class they want. Sorry if this reality hurts your feelings.

Please check your agenda. The low quality Ted talk from 10 years ago is not very convincing. There is more current data that indicates standardized testing is flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled that the specific types of admissions programs at issue failed strict scrutiny and violated Title VI.

But at no point did it rule that the Civil Rights Act or the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits consideration of race in every aspect of our lives. The holding is much more narrowly-tailored than you are portraying.

Who said anything about every aspect of our lives?
We are talking about racial discrimination in college admissions.

Just a few pages ago, PPs were harping on Jim Crow and slavery, which has literally nothing to do with college admissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not their skin color that disqualifies them, it's the test scores.

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

Find graduation rates by race/ethnicity at Ivies and other top 25 schools and get back to me. Negligible difference. It's about getting IN the college and there are thousands of applicants that are qualified.

When all the graduation rates are ~100%, the graduation rates are meaningless. They carry everyone over that finish line.

80% of the white men admitted to STEM majors graduate with STEM degrees.
80% of the black men admitted into STEM majors do NOT graduate with STEM degrees.

They would likely have graduated with a STEM degree from a lower ranked school but they are in over their heads when you accept them with SAT scores so much lower than their classmates, their primary role at these colleges seems to be to fill up the bottom end of the curve.

And to your original (but misguided) point, it's skin color that caused the systemic discrimination in the first place....

And what discrimination did hispanics suffer that asians did not?

And affirmative action in college admissions is specifically NOT supposed to be about correcting for past or current discrimination.

Graduation rates are meaningless? Huh?

Moving the goalposts to STEM degrees now. You must be the silly Asian troll poster from yesteryear.

Who the heck set the goalposts at graduation rates? Graduation rates are a stupid metric when the graduation rate is ~100% for everyone and it makes your argument look exceedingly weak that you have to insist on such a silly goalpost to make things look equal.

The only goalposts I've seen here are college GPAs. I don't think you want to do that. What percentage of black students graduate cum laude, magna cum laude and summa cum laude from these schools compared to other races? What percentage of black students spend at least one year on academic probation compared to other races?

Moving goalposts again. From STEM majors to levels of academic recognition upon graduation. Give it up.

The grievance and whining and frivolous lawsuits ( after 3 political hacks are appointed to the SCOTUS) about "discrimination " are about college admissions ( let me make it very clear for you....before anyone graduates or definitively selects a major, STEM or otherwise).

Furthermore, it's about college admissions to elite and selective colleges. No one is fussing about UC San Diego which happens to have a ton of Asian American students, if not the most.

You're not doing your argument any favors

Most engineering schools require you to apply to the engineering school.
At these selective schools...
Of the black men that get into the engineering school 80% of them decide to drop out of engineering and pursue some other degree.
Of the white men that get into the engineering school 80% graduate with an engineering degree.

The rate of black graduates at highly selective colleges receiving graduation honors is insignificant.
The rate of black students at these colleges on academic probation is very high.

Using graduation rate (which is about 100% for everyone of all races) as an indicator that all the students are equal is stupid. Everyone that is following this thread knows it's stupid and they are embarrassed for you.

But, at least we agree that we are only talking about the top 5% of colleges. Noone is using racial preferences to achieve diversity at Radford. Noone is getting shut out of college, they're not even getting shut out of ivy+. Their population is just shrinking in half.

Wow. Did you even get a GED?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what are the "laws of America"?

The Supreme Court's ruling is not a "law." They are part of the judicial branch, which interprets laws. The legislative branch makes laws.

How about no racial discrimination

Cite the statute.

The 14th amendment of the Constitution of the united states.

The plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about racial discrimination or Asians. Try again.

You know the SFFA v Harvard case was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment right?

NP. Yes but you don't understand what the decision said. You seem to think that it said that school now must look *exclusively* at quantitative academic metrics for determining admissions. But that's not what it said.

The decision forces schools to eliminate race as a factor that can be used to increase a candidate's application scoring. The decision found that because schools were giving scoring points to candidates of some races and not others and because the reasoning used by schools to determine which races received these points was inconsistent and unclear then the use of the this mechanism in admissions violated the 14th amendment.

However the decision does not prevent schools from considering the diversity of incoming classes in making admissions decisions. This means that schools may still consider race in admissions in a holistic way in order to put together a class that roughly reflects the racial demographics of the US or the state in which they are occupied. They just cannot award any individual candidate points towards admission for their race.

The reality of this is that it is still 100% legal for Harvard to decide that it seek to racially balance it's classes in such a way that no race is overrepresented as compared to the general population. The impact is that this results in virtually no change to the percentages of AAPI students admitted to these schools. The schools are not required to fill their classes with AAPI students simply because there are more such candidates with top academic credentials. Because schools may still legally look at qualitative measures for admission including the demographic balance of the incoming class.

So please stop acting like schools that don't immediately have 70% AAPI populations and are still looking at qualitative measures for admission are violating the law. They are not. As long as they are not giving students of any race extra points for race in making admissions decisions they are complying with the supreme court decision. That is all it changed.

Point to the part where I say that SFFA mandates the schools "must look *exclusively* at quantitative academic metrics"
I don't think I do.

I said you can't use race and if you are using any of the other holistic factors as a proxy for race, you can't do that either.
And if you keep doing it, you might:
1. lose the ability to use those holistic factors because we cannot trust you to stop being racist;
2. lose your 501(c)(3) status because you can't be a racist non-profit;
3. lose your federal funding because federal funding can't fund racist institutions.

But you are not interpreting the Supreme Court decision the way literally anyone else is. The decision narrowly tells schools they may not award points to individual applicants for their race. It does not say that schools may not take race into account when create diverse cohorts or balancing the classes. And that is what schools have done. They will not lose their 501(c)(3) status nor will they lose their federal funding.

You also misunderstand the issue of non-race factors that serve as proxies for race. Often these are factors that most people agree are desirable but they *incidentally* operate as proxies for race. For instance many schools actively seek to recruit highly qualified students from inner city high schools with large at-risk populations. This is viewed as desirable because as a culture we believe we should be seeking to elevate and educate the best and the brightest coming out of the country's toughest neighborhoods and places where opportunities for advancement may be few and far between. There is also the argument that if you want to educate policy-makers who will be making decisions about how to deal with issues like inner-city crime and education then you should be looking for people who actual emerge from inner-city environments. Well guess what most of these students are black or hispanic. That doesn't mean that schools that actively recruit valedictorians of inner city schools (which includes most Ivies and other top schools) are only doing it to get more black and hispanic kids in their classes -- I believe they truly believe they should be recruiting kids from these schools independent of their race. But it results in them recruiting more black and hispanic students anyway.

And the Supreme Court decision doesn't tell them they can't do this. They just can't award these students extra points in the process for their race. But they CAN award them extra points for coming from inner-city high schools with large at-risk populations. Absolutely nothing wrong with that and it's also okay for schools to decide they'd rather take a valedictorian from Eastern High School in DC than another kid from a W school in Bethesda or Sidwell or Harvard-Westlake even if the kid from the more elite school has higher SAT scores and more and better APs. Colleges are allowed to preference backgrounds that are under-represented at these schools over backgrounds that are overrepresented and if it impacts the racial makeup of the classes too bad.

I know you WISH this is what the Supreme Court decision said but it's 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:I feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

Why can’t they accept that maybe they aren’t the best applicants…

I know you have trouble comprehending this, but actually we are not all the same

+1 There is so much Asian bashing on this forum. I hope it's just a few ignorant losers, but I suspect it's more than that.

Some Blacks are bitter because they see immigrant group after immigrant group leapfrog their community to prosperity and now they are losing racial preferences too.

Some Whites are bitter because they're losing their privilege with access to exclusive places and high paying jobs and now people cross the street when they see a bunch of young white men hanging out on the sidewalk.

Hispanics are just angling for the fastest climb up that ladder, they know they are going to get there but they'd like to see it for their children rather than their grandchildren or great grand children. They are on a typical generational immigrant pathway to the american dream.

Asians are just tired of being used as the pressure valve for the costs of progressive social policies to remedy injustices they had no hand in creating

This forum lets you say what ever about black people and nothing at all about Asian people…

Say what you want as long as it's true.

We still think there’s something wrong with the kids rather than recognizing their something wrong with the tests,"

"Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools."

There's nothing wrong with the tests.
There's nothing wrong with you.
Study harder.
Earn it.
Don't rely on the guilt and pity of white people to get you something you didn't earn.

The data says differently, but of course you are entitled to your opinion.

No, it doesn't.

The data says that the tests are excellent measures of not only college performance but all sorts of outcomes.
The research on this is so well accepted that it is at least as well established as global warming.

Anyone telling you different is trying to push an agenda.

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

Data also shows that the test are biased. That is one of the reasons colleges don't want only high GPA, high SAT kids. Some have figured out how to follow the law and maintain diversity. It won't take long for the others to get back to the class they want. Sorry if this reality hurts your feelings.

Please check your agenda. The low quality Ted talk from 10 years ago is not very convincing. There is more current data that indicates standardized testing is flawed.

How is math test biased lol
What a pathetic excuse lol