I will engage you since it seems people love to use the NBA as an example of why it is ok not to pursue diversity when it comes to players? 1) The NBA provides entertainment for customers. In order to put forward the best experience, teams draft the "best" players. Unlike in other areas of American life where so-called "merit" is often subjective (i.e., based on who is evaluating and what "standards" they want to use), NBA players show their talents by scoring, defending, etc. which show up in stats 2) Elite colleges are choosing which students get to join their "teams". So long as the students pass a threshold of acceptability when it comes to SATS and grades, whatever that may be (it seems like Harvard uses the 98th percentile for SATS/ACTs), then they take into account a number of factors including the race, geography, ECs, etc. These schools aren't picking these students to satisfy the needs of the public or consumers. These colleges aren't admitting the kids with only the highest SATs and grades. If that were the case, there still wouldn't be enough room to accommodate all the kids with perfect scores, so then what? Also, I have a problem with your notion that someone getting a higher score or grades would make them a better doctor. Any doctor passing their boards should be capable of being a good doctor. Same goes with lawyers. Just because someone aced the LSAT and got great grades doesn't make them a better lawyer... |
I think that the folks screaming about Affirmative Action know that their children and grandchildren are unlikely to be Black, but they think that if they can just get rid of Affirmative Action wihle keeping legacy admission, it might benefit them down the road. This is about preserving the option of legacy admission just in case it benefits them and/or future generations, while getting rid of the factors unlikely to benefit them/future generations. |
+1 Well said. There is an Indian joke that patients should demand more women - because the mother do not force the women to be doctors, but they do force the men to be doctors.... |
It’s a dumb analogy because NBA teams aren’t subject to any rules on how they select players. They’re setting their own standards and behaving accordingly. Colleges are doing exactly the same and these people just don’t like their standards. |
Everyone…this is it. The Asians admitted to the top schools don’t give a rats a** about the ones who aren’t. And once they are in the club, they are just as likely to want to preserve legacy as the white lax bro. |
Majority of the T25 colleges are Private Colleges. They can pick and choose what they want in their freshman class. Nobody is guaranteed a right to an "elite college education" if they score 1580+ on the SATs. If anything, the people involved in these lawsuits are going a long way to demonstrate why they might not be "T25 material"---they could be doing so much better for society if they focused their efforts on a topic to better society, not just to better themselves for a minuscule improvement in education (That nobody is guaranteed access to). |
Top colleges are not-for-profit, so they are held to a different standard than sports teams, which are for-profit. If colleges want to retain their tax status, then they can't discriminate. |
|
Amen |
Should’ve applied to Johns Hopkins. |
Please cite your source on this. Otherwise you are talking out of your a$$. |
no.. you are all dummies. Using ALDC is not discriminatory. Using race is. Bunch of idiots on here. |
blah blah blah blah
The Supreme Court says hello |
Well, considering 99.9% of this thread is people talking out of their a**…I will cite my a** But sure, tell yourself it isn’t true. |
Do you realize how many kids that 5% is? More than 17,000 kids are in the top 1% of SAT scores alone. Harvard only admitted 2,318 applicants. So even if being in the top 1% were their sole criteria (and in fact it appears that 90% of admitted students were), more than 14,000 kids in the top 1% would be (and were) rejected. |