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: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.

Fair enough. I have nothing against socioeconomic diversity. But keep race and gender out of it. And if they try again they’ll be sued again.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

" 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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No obvious logical connection between loss of AA and need to get rid of legacy and athletic admits. This is basically the colleges petulantly threatening to take away our dessert if we don’t eat our peas.

Depends on the rationale. There are Asian Americans on this site threatening to bring discriminatory impact suits against every college with a football team. And they think they’ll win.

They are delusional. College football means a lot more to conservatives in this country than perceived discrimination

I agree, but I’m not sure I trust the Court to write this spring’s opinion with this in mind. The Harvard personality thing cries out for rhetoric about discriminatory impact.

Lol. Because YOU could do so much better?

Not at all, I just think a lot of Supreme Court opinions have unanticipated consequences. I don’t think the Brown v Board Court intended to accelerate white flight, and yet …

Unintended maybe? But are you really arguing that the SC justices who decided Brown v Board were so naive they didn't anticipate white flight? Or are you arguing that they shouldn't have decided the way they did because white flight is worse than separate but equal?

[Anonymous]

The basic issue here is that we have 1 group that is, on average, more willing to move Heaven and earth to achieve certain academic credentials. This approach does not come at zero cost however and it does not necessarily capture the whole picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The basic issue here is that we have 1 group that is, on average, more willing to move Heaven and earth to achieve certain academic credentials. This approach does not come at zero cost however and it does not necessarily capture the whole picture.

Pretend you are referring to Jewish people with the above phrase. It wasn’t ok then and it sure isn’t ok now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic issue here is that we have 1 group that is, on average, more willing to move Heaven and earth to achieve certain academic credentials. This approach does not come at zero cost however and it does not necessarily capture the whole picture.

Pretend you are referring to Jewish people with the above phrase. It wasn’t ok then and it sure isn’t ok now.

Apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

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.

PP here - except that the VAST majority of college athletes are white. There are a few, disproportionately popular sports where Black athletes are overrepresented, but they represent a small portion of college athletes. Sports like soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, tennis, cross country, squash, fencing, sailing, crew, golf, swimming and diving—they’re all overwhelmingly white. That’s part of why athletic preferences are part of the debate: many privileged, white kids get admissions preferences because of athletics.

At the end of the day, though, athletic achievement IS merit-based (or at least should be outside of Varsity Blues scandal-type situations), which is vastly different than legacy programs that are based on being lucky enough to be born with alumni parents or born into a financial situation where they don’t need to worry about financial aid and apply ED.

My point is that athletic preferences are actually *not* a debate at these colleges. They might be part of the debate on forums like this one for the reasons that you’ve given (e.g. the “country club sports”), but they are NOT being looped into the same category as legacy preferences and ED. Once again, the OP misrepresented the article, which mentioned legacy and ED admissions being under scrutiny but not a single word about athletic preferences being under scrutiny.

It’s not merit-based if the only students who can afford to compete in the sports are the ones whose parents have the resources to support them. Do you think these sports are pretty much all-white because white people are better at them?

And why do college athletics exist? A small number do for financial reasons—football and basketball bring in money (like legacy students and donor kids). Many of the others exist, arguably, to give rich white kids a(nother) path into elite schools. That’s why Varsity Blues was possible; it just took what was already going on over a criminal line.

All I’m saying is…athletics are part of this conversation about, even if the NYT article didn’t focus on it.

[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.

The elite schools already *have* been trying to use all of those factors. That’s the point a lot of people are missing: schools already use a ton of targeted zip code data, socioeconomic numbers, and other race-neutral factors. If they could legitimately work as a way to get more racially diverse classes, then they would have been using them already instead of outright Affirmative Action. The issue from the perspective of the elite colleges is that those race neutral factors on their own simply are not enough to achieve the racial diversity that they want. People shouldn’t act as if though there are a lot of clear “backdoor” ways to achieve racial diversity (if that’s the goal) - they’ve tried them all and they just don’t work the way that the colleges want them to work. (Whether the way colleges want them to work is good thing or legal is an entirely different debate.)

[Anonymous]

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

You think most high schools have a separate guidance and college counselor?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Meh. We’re a rice white family and my could go wherever for college and will still have a high standard of living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile ACB’s daughter goes to Notre Dame as a legacy after graduating from a “People of Praise” secondary school.

Whatever your position on ACB's religious beliefs and the value of prioritizing the children of faculty and alumni, I don't see how graduating from any particular HS should disqualify anyone from admission to highly selective colleges. I have no idea what her daughter's academic abilities are and neither do you unless you are on the admissions committee at ND or have taught at her HS.

Many students in this country attend religious and public schools that I would never want my child attending but that doesn't mean that everyone who graduates from them is incapable of performing well at schools with competitive admissions.

[Anonymous]

I hope the court eliminates affirmative action and I hope that leads colleges to remove ED which favors rich people and legacy preferences. Colleges should target their outreach and assistance efforts based on SES AND FG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh. We’re a rice white family and my could go wherever for college and will still have a high standard of living.

I'm glad you enjoy rice as a white family.