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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

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

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



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

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

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

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

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

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

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

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

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

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

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

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

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

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

Well the guy who hit me with their car is paying for my hospital bills, my therapy, my lost wages and my pain and suffering. So if you prefer straight reparations to affirmative action I guess you’ve made the case.

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

+1

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

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



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

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

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

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

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

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

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

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

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

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

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

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

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

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

Well the guy who hit me with their car is paying for my hospital bills, my therapy, my lost wages and my pain and suffering. So if you prefer straight reparations to affirmative action I guess you’ve made the case.

If your theory of AA is that it is compensatory, this works. Assuming the people actually compensated are disadvantaged, which in practice is dubious. If it's supposed to change things, it seems to be failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

I don't know if the fact applies to Harvard recently, but that they don't budge shows that they are lying when they say they are using race for reasons of diversity and not a quota.
It just always turns out that Native American ancestry kids come out a fixed percentage of admitted classes, same for Hispanics and blacks and Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

They will try and succeed. Colleges were told to not use quotas, and they just kept doing it while claiming they were just doing diversity plus factors.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Guess what? Harvard will continue to use personality scores; they will just eliminate race and gender from the scoring criteria. And instead they will substitute things that are proxies for socioeconomic status: private vs. public school, zip code or voting precinct, wealth or education level of guardians, first generation, etc. The most elite schools will find ways to keep their student body diverse.

This will eliminate a lot of the blacks they are currently admitting, who tend to be kids of wealthy blacks, or maybe from Africa or the Caribbean.

[Anonymous]

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

That would be awesome! The US can finally be in synch. with the rest of the world and begin another era of global competitiveness.

A lot of colleges are more football teams that happen to teach some classes.
SEC championship game alone is worth hundreds of millions in TV rights.
SEC Network collects $20 a year from every cable subscriber in the southeast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Guess what? Harvard will continue to use personality scores; they will just eliminate race and gender from the scoring criteria. And instead they will substitute things that are proxies for socioeconomic status: private vs. public school, zip code or voting precinct, wealth or education level of guardians, first generation, etc. The most elite schools will find ways to keep their student body diverse.

This will eliminate a lot of the blacks they are currently admitting, who tend to be kids of wealthy blacks, or maybe from Africa or the Caribbean.

I keep hearing this "zip code" argument. Proxies for race work well on average but they absolutely fall apart when you require people to be at the top of the group. Conditioned on any proxy (zip, first gen, etc.) Asians are on top. The predictiveness of self-identified race at the top is just too powerful.

[Anonymous]

The end of affirmative action will be a great day in America. I heard a great speech about content of character and not the color of ones skin once. I was really good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see whether the ruling prohibits consideration of gender.

I don’t see why colleges would eliminate preference for athletes if affirmative action is banned. What’s the rationale?

I understand why ED and legacy could be eliminated but it may not be in the colleges’ interests to do so.

Right - I think the OP’s topic headline doesn’t reflect the article. It did refer to ED and legacy admissions being at risk, but not athletic preferences at all. Colleges definitely do NOT look at them the same way.

If anything, colleges are going to rely upon athletic preferences even more because that’s a clear race-blind way that can have the effect of increasing underrepresented minority students.

That’s a myth at top colleges. Look at pics of he LAX, squash, water polo, swimming/diving, field hockey crew, golf, etc teams. Even football at an Ivy has more white kids than you would suspect. Lots of very white niche sports at IVys.

Please see my response to this same point at 12:52. In summary, that’s understood, but the reason why elite colleges lean on those sports is that they’re worried about being “too Asian” much more than being “too white and wealthy” in the event that they eliminate athletic preferences. That white lacrosse player is replacing a “low personality” Asian student as opposed to a Black or Latino student, so athletics help provide the “right type” of diversity in the eyes of those colleges. Whether that’s right or wrong is very fair for debate, but I can’t emphasize enough that being “too Asian” is the greater fear for these places than being “too wealthy and white” as of now.

At the same time, athletic preferences are possibly the clearest legal race-neutral way to *directly* admit material numbers of underrepresented minorities in the non-country club sports. They aren’t going away at all - anyone that thinks otherwise needs to understand that being “less Asian” (not “less wealthy and white”) has been the aim of all of these shady application processes like totally subjective personality scores.

Listen to the podcast Gate Crashers. All the stuff we associate with college admissions at Ivies today (sports, geographic diversity, interviewing candidates) was originally used to keep out Jews and is now used to keep out Asians.

Ron Unz wrote an article about this over a decade ago. He bankrolled the California initiative to eliminate Spanish instruction in schools. That is teaching kids in Spanish and not English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Guess what? Harvard will continue to use personality scores; they will just eliminate race and gender from the scoring criteria. And instead they will substitute things that are proxies for socioeconomic status: private vs. public school, zip code or voting precinct, wealth or education level of guardians, first generation, etc. The most elite schools will find ways to keep their student body diverse.

This will eliminate a lot of the blacks they are currently admitting, who tend to be kids of wealthy blacks, or maybe from Africa or the Caribbean.

Not necessarily. If they have the academic credentials, they'll still get in. URM doesn't mean " poor" or "lower class". UMC and rich works too.

The pool might get expanded socioeconomically, but Harvard and other Ivies pretty much give a free ride for low income applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletics exist because there is money to be made in college sports.

Not in college sports. In big time football and mens basketball. You think the LAX team, the squash team and the diving team make money for a college? Not revenue sports are already being cut. Big time. And given the demographic cliff, the interest in supporting low income and first gen students the out of control costs that make private colleges impossible for more and more kids and the need to balance the budget, carrying a squash or water polo Texan (while charging above $80k a year) is going to become less frequent.

https://theconversation.com/colleges-are-eliminating-sports-teams-and-runners-and-golfers-are-paying-more-of-a-price-than-football-or-basketball-players-148965

https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/07/31/george-washington-university-cuts-7-athletic-programs-citing-pandemic/ (7 sports at GW, $200M saved)

It might not be a revenue raising sport on its own, but dropping any team will lead to no more donations from alumni who were on that team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think the colleges are gonna depend on historical red lining to find diverse neighborhoods

Uh, that would include the very white and very poor places like, the Appalachias and West Virginia. The article discusses how socioeconomic diversity will become a driving factor. However, the weakness of focusing on socioeconomics generally is that poor kids don’t even both to apply unless there is sustained and targeted outreach. A poor black kid is more likely to apply than a poor white kid because of affirmative action.

Literally nobody Black applies to a school thinking they will get in because of affirmative action. The bulk of black kids who apply to top schools are the very best of the best, and the top school are losing those people at a rapid rate to HBCUs where they know for certain that they are being picked fairly because of their skill. You can talk about affirmative action all you want but even the most diverse major schools have no more than 9% black students, 4% less than Black representation in the country. Most fall in at 3-4% --WITH affirmative action and goals. I have absolutely no doubt that Asian kids are being discriminated against at school who don't want to "change their culture: because of alumni pressure. But I can guarantee you that Black students are not the beneficiaries of the discrimination. No majority white school afford of having too many Asians is filling up their ranks with Black people instead. They're filing them up with legacies, athletes and full pay ED students, who are white.

Your claim is not at all reflected in the data that has been made public as a result of this lawsuit, where black admits score hundreds of points lower on standardized tests than their white counterparts.

That doesn't contradict what was said. The colleges are stretching to fill there quotas, because high scoring blacks on the SAT is a small number. Once Harvard takes their pick, the remaining schools have not a lot of kids to choose from.
Incidentally, I read that top scores are disproportionately to be found among eldest children. So any race or ethnicity or culture that has lots of kids per family will tend to score lower, because they have a lower share of kids who are eldest child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could help students at more diverse high schools get in if that is used as a proxy for diversity.

It already is. Of course, it’s still usually the kids with the most money in the school zone getting the advantage. Being the most privileged kid at the most disadvantaged high school is a great way to get into a competitive college. What’s the saying about Alexandria? Yale or jail.

This is not really the case. We’re at such a school and kids get zero counseling or help with school selection. My daughter spoke to a counselor for ten min at the start of senior year and that was it. The counselors focus on getting kids to graduate, they don’t have the bandwidth to care about what colleges the kids go to. Looking at Naviance, a lot of top schools never accept the high stats kids who apply from our school and it’s probably because they think the kids aren’t prepared.

Sounds like your kid talked to a guidance counselor not the college counselor. Again, you or your child must do your own homework when it comes to college admissions

In my poor high school, the guidance counselor and the college counselor were - wait for it - the same person!!! I was a good student with stellar extracurricular who got close to no help with college applications. It's real.

My father was a doctor in rural Tennessee and I went to a large poor high school. My counselor (there was only one type) had never heard of half of my college list and thought I was nuts to apply early to Bowdoin

MCPS has only one type of counselor as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletics exist because there is money to be made in college sports.

Not in college sports. In big time football and mens basketball. You think the LAX team, the squash team and the diving team make money for a college? Not revenue sports are already being cut. Big time. And given the demographic cliff, the interest in supporting low income and first gen students the out of control costs that make private colleges impossible for more and more kids and the need to balance the budget, carrying a squash or water polo Texan (while charging above $80k a year) is going to become less frequent.

https://theconversation.com/colleges-are-eliminating-sports-teams-and-runners-and-golfers-are-paying-more-of-a-price-than-football-or-basketball-players-148965

https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/07/31/george-washington-university-cuts-7-athletic-programs-citing-pandemic/ (7 sports at GW, $200M saved)

It might not be a revenue raising sport on its own, but dropping any team will lead to no more donations from alumni who were on that team.

+1

Athletics and college are intertwined. Alumni love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most fair way is to have comprehensive tests on each subjects, and give every kid a chance to show his/her knowledge (achievement in HS) and learning aptitude (potential). All the soft and subjective criteria result in unfairness.

But soft skills are really important in the workplace. I’d rather hire a slightly less academically inclined person who has a strong EQ. Ability to work with others, integrity, and grit matter a lot in life. I think that is why you see many high performers and CEOs that were not top of their class. Intelligence and academic achievement are not the whole picture.

I agree. But I also agree to the post you cited.
Admitting students based on comprehensive tests gives kids an equal opportunity for getting into suitable education. But getting opportunities for job or future work could be based on academics as well as EQ. They are not the same thing

I also think it’s a horrible misperception that the (largely Asian) students getting top GPAs and test scores are getting rejected because they somehow aren’t participating at high levels in leadership positions and extracurricular activities compared to other groups, but Harvard’s own data shows that this isn’t the case. The EQ is there with these kids. These schools simply just don’t want too many Asians today just like they didn’t want too many Jews in the past, so they are effectively playing into pernicious stereotypes (“They’re just test-taking robots!”) despite claiming to be open-minded and fair. The elite colleges need to come to grips with this. I pretty much don’t agree with anything with this current Supreme Court, but on this particular issue, they may finally end up being the check on these schools brazenly finding any way to address the “problem” of “too many Asians” and thinly disguising it under the imprimatur of DEI efforts.

They could reduce this problem if they stopped with certain visas along with family reunification immigration, and would reduce the number of applicants long term. Every year, approximately 100,000 future high performers are being admitted.