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

[Anonymous]

All this whattaboutism is a ridiculous distraction by racist leftwingers. Nobody cares about legacy admits, about sports, about white males. WE WANT ASIAN CHILDREN TO STOP BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN SCHOOLS OF ALL LEVELS.

Sorry that Biden, FCPS school board, and apparently the rest of the nationwide bleeding heart liberals hate asian kids

[Anonymous]

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.

Thus doesn’t follow from the article or what may happen with SCOTUS. Please explain yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is "test-takers" some sort of weird racial euphemism for Asians? Can blacks and Hispanics not be test takers?

You missed part of the sentence. The poster said “diversity of experience and thought.” They were not referring to race, but go ahead with your race baiting.

Can two Asians have diversity of experience and thought?

Can two test-takers have diversity of experience and thought? Why does the act of test-taking remove all the diversity of experience and thought from the test-takers?

Does taking tests turn students into robots? Do test takers spend 24/7 taking tests and never walk outside, don't have hopes and dreams, don't have opinions, don't have culture, family, values?

Still not getting it. The point is that holistic admissions leave room for other accomplishments, geographic diversity, cultural diversity, etc. Test score alone don’t ensure diversity of thought, interests, etc

Why should you be judged based on irrelevant factors that you have no control over, like geographic area, culture and race?

Should colleges take into account physical attractiveness as well?

Well, if you believe admissions should only pick the people with the highest SAT / ACT / AP / IB scores, and the highest weighted GPAs - because study after study has shown these people go on to greater life success - then it only follows they should eventually start also selecting for stature and whether they are "hot or not"

After all, many studies have shown that tall, physically fit and "handsome" people get higher paying corporate jobs that do others.

It is a foolish suggestion - but if you want to lean on numbers then you have to lean on all of the numbers

[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: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.

Is "test-takers" some sort of weird racial euphemism for Asians? Can blacks and Hispanics not be test takers?

You missed part of the sentence. The poster said “diversity of experience and thought.” They were not referring to race, but go ahead with your race baiting.

Can two Asians have diversity of experience and thought?

Can two test-takers have diversity of experience and thought? Why does the act of test-taking remove all the diversity of experience and thought from the test-takers?

Does taking tests turn students into robots? Do test takers spend 24/7 taking tests and never walk outside, don't have hopes and dreams, don't have opinions, don't have culture, family, values?

Still not getting it. The point is that holistic admissions leave room for other accomplishments, geographic diversity, cultural diversity, etc. Test score alone don’t ensure diversity of thought, interests, etc

Why should you be judged based on irrelevant factors that you have no control over, like geographic area, culture and race?

Should colleges take into account physical attractiveness as well?

Well, if you believe admissions should only pick the people with the highest SAT / ACT / AP / IB scores, and the highest weighted GPAs - because study after study has shown these people go on to greater life success - then it only follows they should eventually start also selecting for stature and whether they are "hot or not"

After all, many studies have shown that tall, physically fit and "handsome" people get higher paying corporate jobs that do others.

It is a foolish suggestion - but if you want to lean on numbers then you have to lean on all of the numbers

No, you don't. Have you been drinking this morning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’ll also see happen is colleges become much more dependent on in-person interviews for holistic admissions. A kid who scores a 1450 on his SAT but has a very outgoing personality with a unique ability to “sell himself” will be more attractive to Harvard than the kid with perfect stats who is social awkward. I bet you see more intangibles become more important.

Lol no, Harvard would not even look at the 1450 SAT kid unless they are URM or a Senator's son. Because the choice for Harvard isn't between a kid with 1450 SAT and outgoing personality vs. a 1600 SAT nerd.

It's between a 1600 SAT with an outgoing personality and a 1600 SAT with academic research done in high school, math olympiad, international programming competitions, etc.

And Harvard would choose the latter every time, because kids with outgoing personalities are a dime a dozen and easily developed. Genuine intelligence is rare and impossible to develop.

No, Harvard chooses the former. MIT takes the latter. A former IMO contestant has started a program to help the top math kids get better acceptances to elite colleges other than Cal Tech and MIT, based on the idea that the other top schools are looking at personality and communication skills.

And Harvard is doing everything it can to recruit more STEM students to build out its STEM pedigree. So no, they'd choose the latter.

Outgoing personalities are a dime a dozen. You can go to your local bar and meet many people with an outgoing personality. None of them will have amounted to much.

[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? 🙄🙄🙄

Unfortunately, they already are at liberal arts colleges.

[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.

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?

Maintaining a high GPA is far more difficult for students that work throughout the week than standardized tests.

I don't think anyone has any issue with aa based on SES/income. It's race that people have a problem with.

How can a black kid from an UMC have less privileges from an academic standpoint than an Asian kid from a MC/LC family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is "test-takers" some sort of weird racial euphemism for Asians? Can blacks and Hispanics not be test takers?

You missed part of the sentence. The poster said “diversity of experience and thought.” They were not referring to race, but go ahead with your race baiting.

Can two Asians have diversity of experience and thought?

Can two test-takers have diversity of experience and thought? Why does the act of test-taking remove all the diversity of experience and thought from the test-takers?

Does taking tests turn students into robots? Do test takers spend 24/7 taking tests and never walk outside, don't have hopes and dreams, don't have opinions, don't have culture, family, values?

Still not getting it. The point is that holistic admissions leave room for other accomplishments, geographic diversity, cultural diversity, etc. Test score alone don’t ensure diversity of thought, interests, etc

Why should you be judged based on irrelevant factors that you have no control over, like geographic area, culture and race?

Should colleges take into account physical attractiveness as well?

If it contributed to the educational experience of students, I'm sure they would count it. Since it doesn't, they don't. The factors they do use do enhance the experience.

[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: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.

Is "test-takers" some sort of weird racial euphemism for Asians? Can blacks and Hispanics not be test takers?

You missed part of the sentence. The poster said “diversity of experience and thought.” They were not referring to race, but go ahead with your race baiting.

Can two Asians have diversity of experience and thought?

Can two test-takers have diversity of experience and thought? Why does the act of test-taking remove all the diversity of experience and thought from the test-takers?

Does taking tests turn students into robots? Do test takers spend 24/7 taking tests and never walk outside, don't have hopes and dreams, don't have opinions, don't have culture, family, values?

Still not getting it. The point is that holistic admissions leave room for other accomplishments, geographic diversity, cultural diversity, etc. Test score alone don’t ensure diversity of thought, interests, etc

Why should you be judged based on irrelevant factors that you have no control over, like geographic area, culture and race?

Should colleges take into account physical attractiveness as well?

They should.

Time for AA for baldies, shorties and fatties. It's only fair.

Well they already are working towards making fatness a URM. Fat women, at least.

You have to give it to liberal women for their ability to shame and guilt everyone into making undesirable traits attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this whattaboutism is a ridiculous distraction by racist leftwingers. Nobody cares about legacy admits, about sports, about white males. WE WANT ASIAN CHILDREN TO STOP BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN SCHOOLS OF ALL LEVELS.

Sorry that Biden, FCPS school board, and apparently the rest of the nationwide bleeding heart liberals hate asian kids

Crying racism when you don't get what you want is kind of like crying corruption when you lose an election. Your understanding of the situation is flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this whattaboutism is a ridiculous distraction by racist leftwingers. Nobody cares about legacy admits, about sports, about white males. WE WANT ASIAN CHILDREN TO STOP BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN SCHOOLS OF ALL LEVELS.

Sorry that Biden, FCPS school board, and apparently the rest of the nationwide bleeding heart liberals hate asian kids

Crying racism when you don't get what you want is kind of like crying corruption when you lose an election. Your understanding of the situation is flawed.

This is hilarious because it applies far better to the other side of the AA issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this whattaboutism is a ridiculous distraction by racist leftwingers. Nobody cares about legacy admits, about sports, about white males. WE WANT ASIAN CHILDREN TO STOP BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN SCHOOLS OF ALL LEVELS.

Sorry that Biden, FCPS school board, and apparently the rest of the nationwide bleeding heart liberals hate asian kids

Crying racism when you don't get what you want is kind of like crying corruption when you lose an election. Your understanding of the situation is flawed.

^^^^^another anti-asian racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this whattaboutism is a ridiculous distraction by racist leftwingers. Nobody cares about legacy admits, about sports, about white males. WE WANT ASIAN CHILDREN TO STOP BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN SCHOOLS OF ALL LEVELS.

Sorry that Biden, FCPS school board, and apparently the rest of the nationwide bleeding heart liberals hate asian kids

No, we bleeding heart liberals don't hate your kids, or you. We just don't share your belief that you're being discriminated against in college admissions. We frequently come to your defense in other cases where there's a genuine problem, and will continue to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this whattaboutism is a ridiculous distraction by racist leftwingers. Nobody cares about legacy admits, about sports, about white males. WE WANT ASIAN CHILDREN TO STOP BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN SCHOOLS OF ALL LEVELS.

Sorry that Biden, FCPS school board, and apparently the rest of the nationwide bleeding heart liberals hate asian kids

+ a million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this whattaboutism is a ridiculous distraction by racist leftwingers. Nobody cares about legacy admits, about sports, about white males. WE WANT ASIAN CHILDREN TO STOP BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN SCHOOLS OF ALL LEVELS.

Sorry that Biden, FCPS school board, and apparently the rest of the nationwide bleeding heart liberals hate asian kids

But they aren't. You are delusional.