Will top 25 schools all go test optional due to Anthony Kennedy retiring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

You are clueless. We have Donald Trump as president. He is not going to nominate someone who is to the left or just slightly right to Kennedy. You are a moron. Now quit bragging about your GED.

All of the moderates and swing justices on the Supreme Court during modern times have been nominated by republicans.

None of the justices nominated by liberal presidents have been moderates. They are all very liberal.

The odds of getting a reasonable moderate are most likely with whoever Trump nominates than any justice nominated by a liberal or democratic president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California school systems never went that rout. Even CalTech refused. They simply followed the law.

indeed and did it hurt the UC school's or CalTech's reputation that they let in so many Asians with high test scores? Nope.

So if they get rid of test scores, what academic merit do they look at ... grades? They'd have to also look at what HS you went to because not all A's are are created equal, and I'm guessing that a lot of the students at rigorous HS who get straight As are.... Asian American.

Next, they'll make GPAs optional.

maybe just sex, race, and a high school diploma?

No, not sex because according to the powers that be you can be any sex you want or no sex at all.

I hope they get rid of sex, because then the fraction of women at the ivy's will climb higher as well. Women and Asians will benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California school systems never went that rout. Even CalTech refused. They simply followed the law.

indeed and did it hurt the UC school's or CalTech's reputation that they let in so many Asians with high test scores? Nope.

So if they get rid of test scores, what academic merit do they look at ... grades? They'd have to also look at what HS you went to because not all A's are are created equal, and I'm guessing that a lot of the students at rigorous HS who get straight As are.... Asian American.

Next, they'll make GPAs optional.

In all seriousness, heavily weighting GPA is promoting cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California school systems never went that rout. Even CalTech refused. They simply followed the law.

indeed and did it hurt the UC school's or CalTech's reputation that they let in so many Asians with high test scores? Nope.

So if they get rid of test scores, what academic merit do they look at ... grades? They'd have to also look at what HS you went to because not all A's are are created equal, and I'm guessing that a lot of the students at rigorous HS who get straight As are.... Asian American.

Next, they'll make GPAs optional.

In all seriousness, heavily weighting GPA is promoting cheating.

How so and by whom?

State schools already weight GPA (and/or class rank) heavily. The holistic model is typically used by highly selective private Us that are willing/able to devote serious resources to admissions. FWIW, I don’t think it’s ever (i.e. in either approach) GPA as the HS computes it. There’s a transcript review or rules about which courses count toward GPA for admissions purposes (and which courses matriculants are expected to have taken) and/or a recalculation based on the U’s own standardized point system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California school systems never went that rout. Even CalTech refused. They simply followed the law.

indeed and did it hurt the UC school's or CalTech's reputation that they let in so many Asians with high test scores? Nope.

So if they get rid of test scores, what academic merit do they look at ... grades? They'd have to also look at what HS you went to because not all A's are are created equal, and I'm guessing that a lot of the students at rigorous HS who get straight As are.... Asian American.

Next, they'll make GPAs optional.

In all seriousness, heavily weighting GPA is promoting cheating.

How so and by whom?

State schools already weight GPA (and/or class rank) heavily. The holistic model is typically used by highly selective private Us that are willing/able to devote serious resources to admissions. FWIW, I don’t think it’s ever (i.e. in either approach) GPA as the HS computes it. There’s a transcript review or rules about which courses count toward GPA for admissions purposes (and which courses matriculants are expected to have taken) and/or a recalculation based on the U’s own standardized point system.

PP here about cheating ... I agree with above post that schools weight GPA etc etc. Without SAT/ACT, the only other "objective" measurement colleges look at is GPA and students know that. Some will do whatever they can to get that higher grades. And without standardize test to back up the grades, how can the colleges know the difference? There are a lot of cheating in DMV HS; ask your DC. Teachers / schools know it too but difficult to prove and do anything about that. So my point is not about holistic model or how the GPA is calculated. It's how the grades are earned. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Anonymous]

Not my DC’s experience (in a private school). Lots of pop quizzes, all tests are show-your-work, longer projects have multiple check-ins along the way, lots of course-specific essays. My own public school experience makes it hard for me to imagine that an entire GPA could be significantly influenced by cheating (or that a kid who cheated in every class wouldn’t get reported). A test here or there in some particular class where the teacher didn’t stay in the room or used the same exams over and over, or let kids share calculators during an exam, yeah I did see stuff like that. Of course that was pre-internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

Awww. Such faith. Touching. Liberals are effed buddy. The court is going to be conservative for an entire generation now. It will be the firewall against the unstoppable demographic and hence balance of power changes that will take place over the next 10 years. We need this. We need both sides to be balanced power wise, because we have idiots on both sides who over reach.

The Dems get: 1 person 1 vote and massive increases in Hispanic and minority votes that will swamp the white population in this country. This is going to happen, no way to stop this now. And they have some crazy idiots who will push for wealth redistribution policies like Universal healthcare, free college,

The republicans get : Citizens United and the supreme court. So they will use the power of money and courts to fight the democratic changes, because they will not have the votes in the next ten years.

Affirmative action is dead now. Unless Clarence Thomas dies and we get a democratic president and senate.

So how will colleges handle this.

They will go to zipcode recruiting. They will target Black and Hispanic zipcodes, Give these students massive holistic preference. Since it is not race based, the only way to combat this will be to claim "Disparate impact" , but the colleges will claim "Diversity" and so it will be a wash. The big losers here will be URM's who are upper middle class. Their days of riding the AA gravy train is going to come to an end. May also end some of the agitation on college campuses, most of this is being spearheaded by privileged URM kids who arrive and campus and start causing trouble.

Please stop watching Fox News. It has seriously impacted your brain, but not in a good way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

Awww. Such faith. Touching. Liberals are effed buddy. The court is going to be conservative for an entire generation now. It will be the firewall against the unstoppable demographic and hence balance of power changes that will take place over the next 10 years. We need this. We need both sides to be balanced power wise, because we have idiots on both sides who over reach.

The Dems get: 1 person 1 vote and massive increases in Hispanic and minority votes that will swamp the white population in this country. This is going to happen, no way to stop this now. And they have some crazy idiots who will push for wealth redistribution policies like Universal healthcare, free college,

The republicans get : Citizens United and the supreme court. So they will use the power of money and courts to fight the democratic changes, because they will not have the votes in the next ten years.

Affirmative action is dead now. Unless Clarence Thomas dies and we get a democratic president and senate.

So how will colleges handle this.

They will go to zipcode recruiting. They will target Black and Hispanic zipcodes, Give these students massive holistic preference. Since it is not race based, the only way to combat this will be to claim "Disparate impact" , but the colleges will claim "Diversity" and so it will be a wash. The big losers here will be URM's who are upper middle class. Their days of riding the AA gravy train is going to come to an end. May also end some of the agitation on college campuses, most of this is being spearheaded by privileged URM kids who arrive and campus and start causing trouble.

Agree that the first post is naive wrt the type of Justice Trump would appoint. That said, conservative Justices may take a different attitude toward private universities (e.g. their own or because of a commitment to property rights/freedom of association). Some individuals will also defy expectations. Earl Warren, as AG and later Governor of CA was all for rounding up, relocating, and interning Japanese-Americans. Not the guy you’d have pegged for a leadership role wrt dismantling racial segregation. And it takes a few years for cases to get to the Supreme Court. So it strikes me as premature to declare affirmative action dead. (But not premature to be concerned about its fate and to push for its retention and plan for other ways to achieve racial diversity in elite colleges.)

I don’t think UMC kids from URMs will be screwed. They will include legacies, kids from elite feeder schools, and kids who have a variety of ways (other than SATs) of demonstrating why they’d be great additions to the student bodies of highly selective colleges. This whole gravy train narrative is really obnoxious and completely divorced from reality. I think you’ll also find that there are first gen kids (of all races) who are willing to “cause trouble” in the interests of making elite universities better places by pointing out institutional blindspots and pushing University leaders to live up to their own professed ideals.

Oh Please, spare me the liberal claptrap. All these kids want is identity based totalitarian control of what people can say on campus. They are tyrants who want to slience speech on campus. I have no sympathy for them. Look at "Shrieking girl" at Yale, or the incident at Middlebury or Evergreen state or DePaul or Berkeley. They are thugs and most of them are from privileged families.

Like Stephen Miller?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

You are clueless. We have Donald Trump as president. He is not going to nominate someone who is to the left or just slightly right to Kennedy. You are a moron. Now quit bragging about your GED.

All of the moderates and swing justices on the Supreme Court during modern times have been nominated by republicans.

None of the justices nominated by liberal presidents have been moderates. They are all very liberal.

The odds of getting a reasonable moderate are most likely with whoever Trump nominates than any justice nominated by a liberal or democratic president.

No, what used to be conservative is no longer conservative. According to current rhetoric, Ronald Reagan would be a centrist moderate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

You are clueless. We have Donald Trump as president. He is not going to nominate someone who is to the left or just slightly right to Kennedy. You are a moron. Now quit bragging about your GED.

All of the moderates and swing justices on the Supreme Court during modern times have been nominated by republicans.

None of the justices nominated by liberal presidents have been moderates. They are all very liberal.

The odds of getting a reasonable moderate are most likely with whoever Trump nominates than any justice nominated by a liberal or democratic president.

No, what used to be conservative is no longer conservative. According to current rhetoric, Ronald Reagan would be a centrist moderate.

This should tell you something about the state of the union that is the motivation behind the alt right movement in this country. It says more about the entitlement mentality of the certain segment of the society, including the ones demanding free fast track and tuition to Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

Awww. Such faith. Touching. Liberals are effed buddy. The court is going to be conservative for an entire generation now. It will be the firewall against the unstoppable demographic and hence balance of power changes that will take place over the next 10 years. We need this. We need both sides to be balanced power wise, because we have idiots on both sides who over reach.

The Dems get: 1 person 1 vote and massive increases in Hispanic and minority votes that will swamp the white population in this country. This is going to happen, no way to stop this now. And they have some crazy idiots who will push for wealth redistribution policies like Universal healthcare, free college,

The republicans get : Citizens United and the supreme court. So they will use the power of money and courts to fight the democratic changes, because they will not have the votes in the next ten years.

Affirmative action is dead now. Unless Clarence Thomas dies and we get a democratic president and senate.

So how will colleges handle this.

They will go to zipcode recruiting. They will target Black and Hispanic zipcodes, Give these students massive holistic preference. Since it is not race based, the only way to combat this will be to claim "Disparate impact" , but the colleges will claim "Diversity" and so it will be a wash. The big losers here will be URM's who are upper middle class. Their days of riding the AA gravy train is going to come to an end. May also end some of the agitation on college campuses, most of this is being spearheaded by privileged URM kids who arrive and campus and start causing trouble.

Good observations..

I'd like this. I'm a non-white recent immigrant. I do well financially and expect the same of my kids regardless of them being discriminated against by "elite" institutions.

I like the "coloring" of america over time. My kids and theirs should have less issues with, say buying a farm in Wyoming, as a result.

However, I'm not sure the country should have open borders and immigration should be controlled. The SC will help with that.

I don't care for social issues like religion, abortion, etc. People do what they want anyways..

I am jealous of the Nigerians and other upper class URMs that get benefits that my kids don't. If this helps to stop that, all the better. Resources need to be focused on people who really need them..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

You are clueless. We have Donald Trump as president. He is not going to nominate someone who is to the left or just slightly right to Kennedy. You are a moron. Now quit bragging about your GED.

All of the moderates and swing justices on the Supreme Court during modern times have been nominated by republicans.

None of the justices nominated by liberal presidents have been moderates. They are all very liberal.

The odds of getting a reasonable moderate are most likely with whoever Trump nominates than any justice nominated by a liberal or democratic president.

No, what used to be conservative is no longer conservative. According to current rhetoric, Ronald Reagan would be a centrist moderate.

The democratic nominated justices are are very liberal and farr off from the center.

The moderates are all nominated by republicans.

We are most likely to get a moderate from Trump, than a democratic president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

You are clueless. We have Donald Trump as president. He is not going to nominate someone who is to the left or just slightly right to Kennedy. You are a moron. Now quit bragging about your GED.

All of the moderates and swing justices on the Supreme Court during modern times have been nominated by republicans.

None of the justices nominated by liberal presidents have been moderates. They are all very liberal.

The odds of getting a reasonable moderate are most likely with whoever Trump nominates than any justice nominated by a liberal or democratic president.

No, what used to be conservative is no longer conservative. According to current rhetoric, Ronald Reagan would be a centrist moderate.

The democratic nominated justices are are very liberal and farr off from the center.

The moderates are all nominated by republicans.

We are most likely to get a moderate from Trump, than a democratic president.

The moderates are all by republicans, again, has more to go with the country moving farther and farther to the right. Every time there's the movement to the right, another conservative then appears more "moderate" relative to the new nominee. Roberts, once a staunch conservative, will become the voice of the new "moderate" in the coming SCOTUS, pretty much taking the place of departing Kennedy.

[Anonymous]

Zip code recruitment would be a great way to get higher-performing kids into the lower-performing schools. You don't think some of these families would move to SE DC to get into Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The retirement of Kennedy, J. will probably have no bearing on affirmative action. This is not a hot button issue for the GOP. Based on the list of his potential replacements, we will get a new Justice who will either be a little to his right or a little to his left. Their views on affirmative action are unknown. But I think it’s not going anywhere. The current approach works quite well.

You are clueless. We have Donald Trump as president. He is not going to nominate someone who is to the left or just slightly right to Kennedy. You are a moron. Now quit bragging about your GED.

All of the moderates and swing justices on the Supreme Court during modern times have been nominated by republicans.

None of the justices nominated by liberal presidents have been moderates. They are all very liberal.

The odds of getting a reasonable moderate are most likely with whoever Trump nominates than any justice nominated by a liberal or democratic president.

No, what used to be conservative is no longer conservative. According to current rhetoric, Ronald Reagan would be a centrist moderate.

The democratic nominated justices are are very liberal and farr off from the center.

The moderates are all nominated by republicans.

We are most likely to get a moderate from Trump, than a democratic president.

The moderates are all by republicans, again, has more to go with the country moving farther and farther to the right. Every time there's the movement to the right, another conservative then appears more "moderate" relative to the new nominee. Roberts, once a staunch conservative, will become the voice of the new "moderate" in the coming SCOTUS, pretty much taking the place of departing Kennedy.

No.

The liberals are radicals and have been for a long time.