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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The incredible thing is that so many Asian Americans are voting for this racial discrimination to continue.

Poor Asian kids, what parents they got.

It's not the parents, many of whom don't vote. The kids are even more supportive of voting for this.
The parents largely aren't aware of the issue, or any issues, except what Jagan or Modi is up to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

The bigger reason will be the general culture of not valuing marriage or chastity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If women don’t need men for economic support and can have children without a romantic partner, why are they crying?

LOL you can pretend educated professional women don’t want a suitable husband (meaning, education and salary at least equal to theirs and preferably much superior) but the reality is that they do, and they’ll be big mad when they can’t find one.

Doesn't Maureen Dowd write about this once a year or so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The SAT is becoming less relevant and lower stakes by the admissions cycle. Welcome to 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

Men at the bottom rung won’t find matches either. You can see what’s happening in China. Women at the top and men at the bottom will be unpartnered. I don’t see it as a bad thing. We need less people on Earth.

Yes but nobody cares about bottom-rung men, least of all college educated women, and such men are well aware nobody cares about them. Meanwhile the college girls will be wailing and crying and their sadz will be grist for NYT stories.

As I mentioned. No one is guaranteed a partner, life isn’t fair. In general in history there has always been a surplus of women over men. This issue used to be solved with higher status men having concubines or multiple wives. I am not fazed by this because this is just part of human history and with economic power comes other options than having to partner with a man.

So our educated daughters can look forward to being concubines now? 🙄🙄🙄

At least in college, if there is a 2-1 ratio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I am saying this as a mother of two girls. And if their life dream is to be with an educated men, the competition for those has always been fierce. Act accordingly according to the rules of the dating market place, whatever it is.

Sounds like a lot of fun for the guys at college.

[Anonymous]

Oh yay, this turns into another Black vs. Asian zero-sun debate. Meanwhile white people get off Scott free

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yay, this turns into another Black vs. Asian zero-sun debate. Meanwhile white people get off [/b]Scott free

[b]


It’s Scot free

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

The bigger reason will be the general culture of not valuing marriage or chastity.

What ARE you talking about?

[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.

Curious which countries you are referring that have meritocratic methods?

DP: the vast majority of European and Asian countries. And that's why as a society they tend to be more fair than we are.

In what ways are Asian countries more fair than the US?

And how is rewarding those with the highest test scores fair to those kids who don't have as much time to study for the exams because their family needs them to work?

Families will send two kids to work and one to school.

[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.

Curious which countries you are referring that have meritocratic methods?

China, Japan, and South Korea. And those kids literally kill themselves if they don’t gain admission. Suicide and depression rates among teens are off the chart in those countries. It’s collective trauma.

Cheating on tests in these countries is rampant, and politically-connected and wealthy families can very easily buy their way into the top universities. I figured these would be examples of the countries offered...add India as another country where the admissions process is a mess.

People have already mentioned the UK and European countries.

So, you don't think the good old boys from Eton don't have essentially guaranteed admission at Cambridge or Oxford? I don't know much about the Scandanavian or German college systems...France has a pipeline of the wealthy private school kids to the Sorbonne.

People, stop thinking there are magical, meritocratic places. Maybe there are...but keep trying.

The wealthy and connected will get in to every university they desire. We aren’t talking about frankly these people. We the unwashed masses are discussing admission policies that apply to us, aa being one of them. But yes in a fair world the rich won’t be advantaged, like in every aspect of life. Duh.

It's not 100%. John Kerry didn't get in to a top law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yay, this turns into another Black vs. Asian zero-sun debate. Meanwhile white people get off Scott free

Exactly how SFFA's Ed Blum wanted it.

[Anonymous]

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.

Great! Now they will take mediocre black athletes to fill things like lacrosse teams to bring in more diversity.

Is that a reference to Jim Brown?

[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.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Nope. I taught first grade. Kids arrive at elementary school with profound differences. The answer is birth to age five, and more probably birth to age three.

Studies have shown the benefits of Head Start disappear after a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

This is a great idea. Make colleges pay taxes on their property and their endowments.

No. They are non profits. Sorry that is the way it works. And you would not pay on an endowment in any event -- just on the taxable gains.

But the bigger picture ---- a college with just the best test takers (and most will go back to requiring tests) is not a place most would wantr to be at. Not enough diveristy of experience and thought.

Harvard doesn't pay taxes, and is taking advantage of its status by running hotels.