The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you say affirmative action is ok as long as it helps white people? I am white and believe that is wrong. I am against all affirmative action. People should be let into schools based on their merits, not based on racial or religious quotas. My parent was denied entry to an ivy league school based on his religion. I am a firm believer in earning your way into school. Get rid of legacy, athletic merit, etc.

Athletes do earn their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not much of a response on the merits . . . .

This has been hashed out extensively in two other threads this week.

I don't know where they are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

I work in higher education admin. in a finance area. Outside of the schools that have big teams that net revenues from TV, etc. Sports is a cost to schools not a money maker. Title IX expanded equity, so you have more sports to pay for. Facilities, scholarships, salaries. It all adds up.

So, no. Outside of the big 10 school I worked at, it's not a money maker. It's a student life benefit really. And a belief that sports adds to the educational experience for students as either participants or spectators. Also, to make donors happy.

All of the schools you mention lose money from having these sports. But they aren't going anywhere.

Sports can stay. Admissions spots reserved for athletes should go. Legacy admits should go.

Your going to have non-athletic kids play sports. ???

Why not? Isn't the argument for having athletics in college mind and body? Let the kids who like soccer, but aren't brilliant at it, play on the team. If the value is athletics for physical activity, it's wrong to limit it to the top 1% of players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-white-students-legacy-athletes-donors.html?fbclid=IwAR1rIja_w5l2GYZp9tcN5o0sdyhJ01IKtZnfarZ6ridBABkHREuuniQdr68

The paper is based on data that emerged during the controversial lawsuit that accused the university of discriminating against Asian applicants, which gave the public an unprecedented look behind the scenes of the school’s admissions process. (Closing arguments in that case wrapped in February, but the judge has not rendered a decision.) The study’s lead author, Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono, served as an expert witness for the case’s plaintiffs, who are seeking to eliminate the consideration of race in university admissions. But the new research was conducted independently without any funding from the plaintiffs, according to a disclosure.

Whites were also far more likely to be recruited for sports: Jocks made up an additional 16 percent of the white students that Harvard admitted, versus roughly 9 percent among blacks and 4 percent among Hispanics and Asians. Overall, approximately 69 percent of athletes accepted to Harvard were Caucasian.

43 percent of the Caucasian applicants accepted at Harvard University were either athletes, legacies, or the children of donors and faculty. Only about a quarter of those students would have been accepted to the school, the study concludes, without those admissions advantage . . . if you took away the admissions advantages, only 26 percent of the white athletes, legacies, dean’s listers, and faculty children Harvard admitted between 2009 and 2014 would still make the cut based on, say, their grades. At most, the white legacy/dean’s list/faculty kid group would have an acceptance rate of about 14 percent.

Thank you !!!

Please. Table 11 is the real kicker here. If you removed Athletic and Legacy preferences, Table 11 tells you that rich whites will be replaced by poor whites, but they will still be whites, so the white population would decrease just slightly. The real kicker is to remove Racial preferences. Then the game would change totally. White and Asian would increase ( White a little bit, Asian a lot and it would all come at the expense of Blacks and Hispanics, which we already knew) The Legacy, Athlete screed from the left is just a red herring as this paper and Table 11 shows

DP.. I'm not reading these posts the same as you.

What I'm reading is that affirmative action for legacies and athletes disproportionately help white people at the expense of more qualified Asian American students.

OP posted that some white people claim that brown and black people are the recipients of affirmative action, but here in this article, we see that a large portion of white people are also big beneficiaries of affirmative action.

The biggest loser every which way you see it are Asian Americans -- the smallest minority group in the US (aside from Native Americans, of course).

Then you are reading the paper wrong. If you removed Legacy and athletes, yes Asians would benefit, but this preference doesn't disproportionally benefit whites, because when you remove it, the white enrollment doesn't plummet, instead one set of whites will replace another set of whites. Woke rich Whites from the coasts will be replaced by poorer more deserving whites from the hinterland. Not all white folks are the same. But now if you remove Affirmative action, Black and Brown enrollment would plummet and Asians would be the biggest beneficiaries, just as SFFA is claiming. Contrary to the false narrative on the left, the lawsuit is not shooting at blacks and browns using Asians for the benefit of whites. That is total nonsense.

The bolded statement is just wrong.

When you remove legacy and athletes, white enrollment does drop, by about 8-10% and most of the gains go to Asian student enrollment, not whites.

You should further consider the logical implication of your statement. When you remove one type of preference it helps Asians. When you remove another type, it helps whites. Why would that be?

Are those 'poorer more deserving whites from the hinterland' more qualified than Asians? If so, where are all those whites going when the racial preference is removed?

If your statement is true, then it suggests that whites have a reserved percentage at Harvard and non-whites fight over the rest. Boy, that looks like a set aside to me.

This is simple to answer. They are going nowhere. There are enough well qualified Whites in the applicant pool right now that are getting rejected so they get a modest bump when all the preferences are removed and they compete on a level playing field. Now obviously, the Asians who are getting screwed right now due to blatant discrimination will get the lions share of the benefits, because pound for pound, their applicant pool is much stronger and it is not just because of their scores. They also have great EC's and if Harvard did not deliberately ding them on the personal ratings to keep their numbers low and give those seats to blacks and Hispanics, they would score high on the personal ratings as well and occupy most of the slots that the URM's take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metric driven Asians who are not wrongly believe SAT or ACT or GPA scores are only metrics to be considered.

College is not a "cram school" only for studying.

Schools have bands, football teams, Frats, clubs, musicians, and are diverse with folks from different cultures, states and countries, different religions and income levels. It is a time to learn about everything not just what is in a dusty old book.

My time in college the kids who only studied, sat in Library, rarely went out, may have got good grades but got zero from college experience and stole from other kids their college experience.

Asians in general should sue to promote diversity but 100 percent wrong to sue to turn a school from one race to their race.

Imagine a college with no teams, no art department, no shows, no music, no frats, no bars, no religion, no politics or parties. Just little robots with heads down studying. Sadly who wants to go to that school. Well that school is what the Asians are suing to create at Harvard

Imagine an academic institution only caring about academics. Fancy that. Other top rated universities around the world only look at stats. It doesn't seem to have hurt their world standing. Oxford and Cambridge come to mind, as does Cal tech and Cal.

If you want an only academic school... apply to Cal Tech.

If you want a well rounded college experience, deal with athletes and artists.

Like I stated, Cambridge produces great artists, and they have no affirmative action. How do they manage that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you say affirmative action is ok as long as it helps white people? I am white and believe that is wrong. I am against all affirmative action. People should be let into schools based on their merits, not based on racial or religious quotas. My parent was denied entry to an ivy league school based on his religion. I am a firm believer in earning your way into school. Get rid of legacy, athletic merit, etc.

Athletes do earn their way.

Like Loughlin's daughter? One has to wonder how many of these scenarios occur?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is simple to answer. They are going nowhere. There are enough well qualified Whites in the applicant pool right now that are getting rejected so they get a modest bump when all the preferences are removed and they compete on a level playing field. Now obviously, the Asians who are getting screwed right now due to blatant discrimination will get the lions share of the benefits, because pound for pound, their applicant pool is much stronger and it is not just because of their scores. They also have great EC's and if Harvard did not deliberately ding them on the personal ratings to keep their numbers low and give those seats to blacks and Hispanics, they would score high on the personal ratings as well and occupy most of the slots that the URM's take.

And to white students.. those seats are also given to legacies and athletes, which is the point OP is making. So, from an academic perspective, those white students are also taking those spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Study after study shows white women are the biggest winners of affirmative action as it's used today but no one wants to admit that. ~Asian American who went to MIT (I know, a stereotype).

It would help to know what studies you're referring to or how they define affirmative action, but I suspect they are not talking about qualifications to get into college, given that I keep reading about how girls outperform boys in schools.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/girls-get-better-grades-boys-even-stem-subjects-study-finds-n912891
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades

I suspect this affirmative action benefit for white women that you mention is established in these numerous studies was about opening employment and promotional opportunities for women in decades past after centuries of undeniable employment restrictions and discrimination. And it benefited white women more than women of color because, white privilege is real in all aspects of life. I seriously doubt that affirmative action is the beneficial factor for women employment applicants now, given that women currently outpace men in college degrees.

But even assuming there were some affirmative action benefiting women in college admissions or elsewhere, do you think that's a bad thing? Would it be better to have gender imbalance? Do you think there is no social value to having more equal participation gender-wise?

[Anonymous]

Title of this thread is horrendous. Like reading a Trump tweet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any data on how much money say, Princeton Men's Swimming, Stanford Women's Rowing, Harvard Fencing, Yale Baseball and the like bring in to their respective institutions? I am trying to determine what is the benefit that these sports provide to the schools. I can't see ticket sales or merchandise making money...

I work in higher education admin. in a finance area. Outside of the schools that have big teams that net revenues from TV, etc. Sports is a cost to schools not a money maker. Title IX expanded equity, so you have more sports to pay for. Facilities, scholarships, salaries. It all adds up.

So, no. Outside of the big 10 school I worked at, it's not a money maker. It's a student life benefit really. And a belief that sports adds to the educational experience for students as either participants or spectators. Also, to make donors happy.

All of the schools you mention lose money from having these sports. But they aren't going anywhere.

Sports can stay. Admissions spots reserved for athletes should go. Legacy admits should go.

Your going to have non-athletic kids play sports. ???

Why not? Isn't the argument for having athletics in college mind and body? Let the kids who like soccer, but aren't brilliant at it, play on the team. If the value is athletics for physical activity, it's wrong to limit it to the top 1% of players.

I guess you don't have clue how much sports rakes in? Those kids aren't taking away smart kids spots - they are actually give OTHER kids scholarships that are not athletes. Donors and legacies want to see sports excel in their school, whether you like it or not. They pay big bucks for it, even at Ivy.

And the reason so many white kids are the athletes is because ivy sports like lacrosse, crew, tennis, rugby, etc... are predominately white people sports. Put your Asian, hispanic, or AA student in those sports and their shot to get in an IVY just quadrupled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Table 11 you fool. Table 11.

+1

Best evidence of racism I can think of.

Then you don't read enough.

??

Evidence is about facts and numbers, not about "reading."

Table 11 is incredible. In a meritocratic Harvard, with no legacies or athletes or racial preferences, less than a third of current African Americans would have got it, and less than two thirds of Hispanics.

The main losers? Asian Americans and non-legacy whites.

Dipsh*t, you learn facts and numbers by 'reading'. Isn't that how you found your magical Table 11? Or did it come to you in a vision?

If this is the best evidence of racism you can think of, then, yes, you don't read enough to accumulate facts and numbers.

Bigdipsh*t, let me guess: assuming you finished college, you didn't get in because of your merits. You stole the seat to someone more qualified than you, struggled to keep up with the workload, and now hate everyone in the universe.

Such a pity. If only you had learned proper math in middle and high school, you could have had a bright future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metric driven Asians who are not wrongly believe SAT or ACT or GPA scores are only metrics to be considered.

College is not a "cram school" only for studying.

Schools have bands, football teams, Frats, clubs, musicians, and are diverse with folks from different cultures, states and countries, different religions and income levels. It is a time to learn about everything not just what is in a dusty old book.

My time in college the kids who only studied, sat in Library, rarely went out, may have got good grades but got zero from college experience and stole from other kids their college experience.

Asians in general should sue to promote diversity but 100 percent wrong to sue to turn a school from one race to their race.

Imagine a college with no teams, no art department, no shows, no music, no frats, no bars, no religion, no politics or parties. Just little robots with heads down studying. Sadly who wants to go to that school. Well that school is what the Asians are suing to create at Harvard

Imagine an academic institution only caring about academics. Fancy that. Other top rated universities around the world only look at stats. It doesn't seem to have hurt their world standing. Oxford and Cambridge come to mind, as does Cal tech and Cal.

Well, doesn't Cal recruit athletes by the dozen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Table 11 you fool. Table 11.

+1

Best evidence of racism I can think of.

Then you don't read enough.

??

Evidence is about facts and numbers, not about "reading."

Table 11 is incredible. In a meritocratic Harvard, with no legacies or athletes or racial preferences, less than a third of current African Americans would have got it, and less than two thirds of Hispanics.

The main losers? Asian Americans and non-legacy whites.

Dipsh*t, you learn facts and numbers by 'reading'. Isn't that how you found your magical Table 11? Or did it come to you in a vision?

If this is the best evidence of racism you can think of, then, yes, you don't read enough to accumulate facts and numbers.

Bigdipsh*t, let me guess: assuming you finished college, you didn't get in because of your merits. You stole the seat to someone more qualified than you, struggled to keep up with the workload, and now hate everyone in the universe.

Such a pity. If only you had learned proper math in middle and high school, you could have had a bright future.

I'm Asian American, you ignorant twit. So that means I had to be more qualified than you to get into the same college.

I don't hate anyone, not even you. I just pity your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirmative-action-white-students-legacy-athletes-donors.html?fbclid=IwAR1rIja_w5l2GYZp9tcN5o0sdyhJ01IKtZnfarZ6ridBABkHREuuniQdr68

The paper is based on data that emerged during the controversial lawsuit that accused the university of discriminating against Asian applicants, which gave the public an unprecedented look behind the scenes of the school’s admissions process. (Closing arguments in that case wrapped in February, but the judge has not rendered a decision.) The study’s lead author, Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono, served as an expert witness for the case’s plaintiffs, who are seeking to eliminate the consideration of race in university admissions. But the new research was conducted independently without any funding from the plaintiffs, according to a disclosure.

Whites were also far more likely to be recruited for sports: Jocks made up an additional 16 percent of the white students that Harvard admitted, versus roughly 9 percent among blacks and 4 percent among Hispanics and Asians. Overall, approximately 69 percent of athletes accepted to Harvard were Caucasian.

43 percent of the Caucasian applicants accepted at Harvard University were either athletes, legacies, or the children of donors and faculty. Only about a quarter of those students would have been accepted to the school, the study concludes, without those admissions advantage . . . if you took away the admissions advantages, only 26 percent of the white athletes, legacies, dean’s listers, and faculty children Harvard admitted between 2009 and 2014 would still make the cut based on, say, their grades. At most, the white legacy/dean’s list/faculty kid group would have an acceptance rate of about 14 percent.

Thank you !!!

Please. Table 11 is the real kicker here. If you removed Athletic and Legacy preferences, Table 11 tells you that rich whites will be replaced by poor whites, but they will still be whites, so the white population would decrease just slightly. The real kicker is to remove Racial preferences. Then the game would change totally. White and Asian would increase ( White a little bit, Asian a lot and it would all come at the expense of Blacks and Hispanics, which we already knew) The Legacy, Athlete screed from the left is just a red herring as this paper and Table 11 shows

DP.. I'm not reading these posts the same as you.

What I'm reading is that affirmative action for legacies and athletes disproportionately help white people at the expense of more qualified Asian American students.

OP posted that some white people claim that brown and black people are the recipients of affirmative action, but here in this article, we see that a large portion of white people are also big beneficiaries of affirmative action.

The biggest loser every which way you see it are Asian Americans -- the smallest minority group in the US (aside from Native Americans, of course).

Then you are reading the paper wrong. If you removed Legacy and athletes, yes Asians would benefit, but this preference doesn't disproportionally benefit whites, because when you remove it, the white enrollment doesn't plummet, instead one set of whites will replace another set of whites. Woke rich Whites from the coasts will be replaced by poorer more deserving whites from the hinterland. Not all white folks are the same. But now if you remove Affirmative action, Black and Brown enrollment would plummet and Asians would be the biggest beneficiaries, just as SFFA is claiming. Contrary to the false narrative on the left, the lawsuit is not shooting at blacks and browns using Asians for the benefit of whites. That is total nonsense.

The bolded statement is just wrong.

When you remove legacy and athletes, white enrollment does drop, by about 8-10% and most of the gains go to Asian student enrollment, not whites.

You should further consider the logical implication of your statement. When you remove one type of preference it helps Asians. When you remove another type, it helps whites. Why would that be?

Are those 'poorer more deserving whites from the hinterland' more qualified than Asians? If so, where are all those whites going when the racial preference is removed?

If your statement is true, then it suggests that whites have a reserved percentage at Harvard and non-whites fight over the rest. Boy, that looks like a set aside to me.

This is simple to answer. They are going nowhere. There are enough well qualified Whites in the applicant pool right now that are getting rejected so they get a modest bump when all the preferences are removed and they compete on a level playing field. Now obviously, the Asians who are getting screwed right now due to blatant discrimination will get the lions share of the benefits, because pound for pound, their applicant pool is much stronger and it is not just because of their scores. They also have great EC's and if Harvard did not deliberately ding them on the personal ratings to keep their numbers low and give those seats to blacks and Hispanics, they would score high on the personal ratings as well and occupy most of the slots that the URM's take.

You are missing my question, I think. Why are the 'Asian' seats, and only the Asian seats, being given to blacks and Hispanics? Why aren't white seats, which are already more numerous, affected in the same proportion. Are whites shielded to a greater extent from the effect of the race preference? If so, why? If Asians are considered only relative to other non-white applicants, does it not suggest that white students receive a fixed percentage of the spots at the school, regardless of relative merit?

The point I'm making is that if Asians are as stronger as you say, then it doesn't matter whether the seat they should be occupying is taken by a black, Hispanic or white student. All of three groups are benefiting from a race preference, are they not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you say affirmative action is ok as long as it helps white people? I am white and believe that is wrong. I am against all affirmative action. People should be let into schools based on their merits, not based on racial or religious quotas. My parent was denied entry to an ivy league school based on his religion. I am a firm believer in earning your way into school. Get rid of legacy, athletic merit, etc.

Athletes do earn their way.

How do athletes earn their way in a manner that is in any way relevant to the purpose of the school?