SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is URM?

Underrepresented minority, e.g. Black, Hispanic, Native American

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about acceptance, just enrollment. Maybe fewer Asians want to attend those schools.

Just 3 of the top 15 colleges and 2 Ivies.

Yeah.....right.

Based on all the statistical models and the self confessed amicus briefs by many of these colleges, we expected to see a 50% drop in URM and a significant increase in asian admissions.
Yale specifically signed onto a brief saying that the end of racial preferences would be devastating to their URM population and there was no possible way to maintain their diversity without race conscious admissions.
So were they lying then or are they lying now?

There are enough academically brilliant URMs to get accepted to Yale an other elite colleges.

This. It’s sad how many dcumers don’t seem to understand this.

Anyone who say discovery from the underlying cases knows how much the schools had to overlook test scores and massage personality ratings to get the class they wanted. They wouldn't have had to do that if this enormous pool of qualified applicants existed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now Ed Blum's group doesn't like the decrease in admitted Asian American students at Yale, Princeton, and Duke.

This is getting ridiculous.

Excerpt from a New York Times article from today:

"The group that successfully sued Harvard to end affirmative action in university admissions last year is now threatening to investigate whether schools are complying with the new rules and to file lawsuits if it believes that they are not.

The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has focused on three universities — Princeton, Yale and Duke — where there were notable declines in Asian American enrollment this year compared with the last year, which the group said defied expectations.

On Tuesday, Students for Fair Admissions sent letters to the schools questioning whether they were complying with the rules laid out by the Supreme Court. Princeton, Duke and Yale also saw minor differences in Black and Hispanic enrollment in the first class of students admitted since the court struck down race-conscious admissions.

The group, a nonprofit that opposes race-based admissions and that represented Asian students in the lawsuit against Harvard, suggested that it was setting itself up as an enforcer of the new rules."

Nice! Keep the college cartel on its toes. Ultimate goal should be 100% transparency with the admissions process.

Unless he has evidence, it'll end with the schools not bothering to respond to his letters

Statistical evidence is evidence.
If they don't respond, he will proceed with discovery and they will have to disclose their admissions information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities don’t have the sole mission of admitting the 1000 smartest students every year. That’s not their goal. They cannot say they thought because a lot of your heads would explode.

But they shouldn't be racially discriminating.
Racial discrimination is an impermissible goal.
And that is what they think is still happening despite the supreme court telling them to knock it off.

And frankly rank order admission to college based on academic stats is pretty common in the rest of the world.

America is not the rest of the world. Go to college in those countries if that’s your priority.

I am curious...is there an American Expat/immigrant community over in England/Europe/India that cries like babies about the admissions process in those countries?

Maybe there is...but I doubt it. I imagine those expats/immigrants accept how the system works and figure out how to make the best of it.

The UK looks at grades and test scores, that's it. Asian Brits do better in the UK academically than any other groups, just like here.

pupils from the Chinese ethnic group had the highest Attainment 8 score out of all ethnic groups (66.1), followed by pupils from the Indian ethnic group (61.3)

people from the Chinese ethnic group had the highest entry rate in every year from 2006 to 2022

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/

As an example:



https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/ethnicity

Chinese make up 1% of the UK population but take up 16% of the seats in Oxford.

They don't need to whine about it because the system there is transparent.

My DC got super high stats on their GPA (from a magnet) and SAT scores (1580). My IL is here from the UK and was gobsmacked that a kid with those stats didn't even get an interview or on the waitlist for a T10. In the UK, they said such a student would at least get an interview at the top schools.

DC is a dual citizen and said that they would consider moving to the UK if they have kids because the college admissions process here is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about acceptance, just enrollment. Maybe fewer Asians want to attend those schools.

Just 3 of the top 15 colleges and 2 Ivies.

Yeah.....right.

Based on all the statistical models and the self confessed amicus briefs by many of these colleges, we expected to see a 50% drop in URM and a significant increase in asian admissions.
Yale specifically signed onto a brief saying that the end of racial preferences would be devastating to their URM population and there was no possible way to maintain their diversity without race conscious admissions.
So were they lying then or are they lying now?

There are enough academically brilliant URMs to get accepted to Yale an other elite colleges.

This. It’s sad how many dcumers don’t seem to understand this.

Anyone who say discovery from the underlying cases knows how much the schools had to overlook test scores and massage personality ratings to get the class they wanted. They wouldn't have had to do that if this enormous pool of qualified applicants existed

Discovery was from a period when everyone had to submit test scores. This year’s class was admitted test optional. In a test optional world it’s entirely possible that they managed this by adjusting for school and neighborhood context. The next class will be test-mandatory at some of these schools, we will see what happens then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities don’t have the sole mission of admitting the 1000 smartest students every year. That’s not their goal. They cannot say they thought because a lot of your heads would explode.

But they shouldn't be racially discriminating.
Racial discrimination is an impermissible goal.
And that is what they think is still happening despite the supreme court telling them to knock it off.

And frankly rank order admission to college based on academic stats is pretty common in the rest of the world.

I don't for the life of me understand why there is so much complaining about US colleges, when people freely admit there are colleges all over the place where they will be admitted based on straightforward stats.

Have your kid go to one of those colleges. What's the problem?

What's the problem? It's expensive and far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about acceptance, just enrollment. Maybe fewer Asians want to attend those schools.

Just 3 of the top 15 colleges and 2 Ivies.

Yeah.....right.

Based on all the statistical models and the self confessed amicus briefs by many of these colleges, we expected to see a 50% drop in URM and a significant increase in asian admissions.
Yale specifically signed onto a brief saying that the end of racial preferences would be devastating to their URM population and there was no possible way to maintain their diversity without race conscious admissions.
So were they lying then or are they lying now?

There are enough academically brilliant URMs to get accepted to Yale an other elite colleges.

This. It’s sad how many dcumers don’t seem to understand this.

We understand, but they are not very big in numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about acceptance, just enrollment. Maybe fewer Asians want to attend those schools.

Just 3 of the top 15 colleges and 2 Ivies.

Yeah.....right.

Based on all the statistical models and the self confessed amicus briefs by many of these colleges, we expected to see a 50% drop in URM and a significant increase in asian admissions.
Yale specifically signed onto a brief saying that the end of racial preferences would be devastating to their URM population and there was no possible way to maintain their diversity without race conscious admissions.
So were they lying then or are they lying now?

There are enough academically brilliant URMs to get accepted to Yale an other elite colleges.

This. It’s sad how many dcumers don’t seem to understand this.

Anyone who say discovery from the underlying cases knows how much the schools had to overlook test scores and massage personality ratings to get the class they wanted. They wouldn't have had to do that if this enormous pool of qualified applicants existed

Discovery was from a period when everyone had to submit test scores. This year’s class was admitted test optional. In a test optional world it’s entirely possible that they managed this by adjusting for school and neighborhood context. The next class will be test-mandatory at some of these schools, we will see what happens then.

If that's what they did, they better hope that they were very careful with the wording in all of their internal communications and that no one who designed the system is inclined to cooperate with SFFA because targeting majority black neighborhoods as proxies for black students is just as illegal. Hopefully the plaintiffs push for damages during the next go around

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about acceptance, just enrollment. Maybe fewer Asians want to attend those schools.

Just 3 of the top 15 colleges and 2 Ivies.

Yeah.....right.

Based on all the statistical models and the self confessed amicus briefs by many of these colleges, we expected to see a 50% drop in URM and a significant increase in asian admissions.
Yale specifically signed onto a brief saying that the end of racial preferences would be devastating to their URM population and there was no possible way to maintain their diversity without race conscious admissions.
So were they lying then or are they lying now?

Duke decided to care about Carolina residents. Do you expect a district court in NC to tell them they can't do that?

Who told you that they were applying a preference for North Carolinians?
Duke went from 13% North Carolinian to 15% North Carolinian.
If they were applying a preference for North Carolinians, it wasn't a big one.
It's hard to fit a 6% point decrease in asian enrollment into a 2% increase in North Carolinian enrollment.

I expect this will be appealed to the supreme court no matter who wins at the district level.
Racists always resist attempts to restrict their racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is what people thought would happen…that it would benefit whites the most…yet how many Asians were on this forum celebrating the end of AA.

Asians complain about model minority and them totally believe in it when convenient.

Those darn Asians, believing in transparent policies with fair standards for all

If you think they’re fighting for anyone besides their personal child, I have got a lovely bridge you should buy.

And that makes the racism against their kids more acceptable?

Does that dismissive rationale apply to all the black protestors in the 1960s, they were only doing it because it because they're black?
They weren't really trying to improve things for anyone but themselves? Or are asians the only ones that can't advocate against racist policies if those racist policies hurt them?
It was cynical and not at all principled? Or are asians the only ones that fight racism for cynical reasons?

Edward Blum doesn't have any asian kids that he knows of, I guess he is just doing it because he hates black people?

[Anonymous]

The top schools know that they can’t remove diversity aspect from admissions.

I’m as a parent will not send my kid to a predominantly Asian school and the school knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“It's not ridiculous at all. SFFA brought the action which was successful. Scotus said stop discriminating based upon race. Colleges and universities sent out letters asserting to alumni that, nevertheless, they remained committed to diversity (but only one kind) and started playing games in the essays. Not smart to thimb your nose at SCOTUS. The numbers of asian students went down! that wasn't supposed to happen. I hope they brong a second suit for clarification. The schools are defying the ruling and putting themselves in charge of race based admissions in America.”

Yes. It is quite ridiculous. SCOTUS is the most corrupt court ever and has no credibility and no ethics. They didn’t ban it for the military. Why is that? They didn’t address legacy admissions-otherwise known as white affirmative action. Why is that? Again, it’s all a lie. Nobody is entitled to go to these schools. Get over yourselves.

They didn't ban it for the military because academies are unique and no one briefed the issue

They didn't address legacy because not having a parent who graduated from Harvard is not a protected class

Please explain how military is unique? What does protected class even mean? If the goal is merit based admissions, and the data shows that most legacy admits would not be admitted without those preferences-then not addressing it leaves the motive naked and bare for all to see. The goal is not merit based and it never has been. It is to eliminate all programs designed to address historical discrimination against minorities. “Merit” is the cover. But if merit was truly the goal, an entire host of issues would be getting addressed. But they’re not. They never have been. And there’s never been outrage about those issues. There’s only outrage about programs that have targeted benefits to minorities. There’s 150 yrs of history that says so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“It's not ridiculous at all. SFFA brought the action which was successful. Scotus said stop discriminating based upon race. Colleges and universities sent out letters asserting to alumni that, nevertheless, they remained committed to diversity (but only one kind) and started playing games in the essays. Not smart to thimb your nose at SCOTUS. The numbers of asian students went down! that wasn't supposed to happen. I hope they brong a second suit for clarification. The schools are defying the ruling and putting themselves in charge of race based admissions in America.”

Yes. It is quite ridiculous. SCOTUS is the most corrupt court ever and has no credibility and no ethics. They didn’t ban it for the military. Why is that? They didn’t address legacy admissions-otherwise known as white affirmative action. Why is that? Again, it’s all a lie. Nobody is entitled to go to these schools. Get over yourselves.

They didn't ban it for the military because academies are unique and no one briefed the issue

They didn't address legacy because not having a parent who graduated from Harvard is not a protected class

Please explain how military is unique? What does protected class even mean? If the goal is merit based admissions, and the data shows that most legacy admits would not be admitted without those preferences-then not addressing it leaves the motive naked and bare for all to see. The goal is not merit based and it never has been. It is to eliminate all programs designed to address historical discrimination against minorities. “Merit” is the cover. But if merit was truly the goal, an entire host of issues would be getting addressed. But they’re not. They never have been. And there’s never been outrage about those issues. There’s only outrage about programs that have targeted benefits to minorities. There’s 150 yrs of history that says so.

That's one way to advertise that you have no idea what the argument is even about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“It's not ridiculous at all. SFFA brought the action which was successful. Scotus said stop discriminating based upon race. Colleges and universities sent out letters asserting to alumni that, nevertheless, they remained committed to diversity (but only one kind) and started playing games in the essays. Not smart to thimb your nose at SCOTUS. The numbers of asian students went down! that wasn't supposed to happen. I hope they brong a second suit for clarification. The schools are defying the ruling and putting themselves in charge of race based admissions in America.”

Yes. It is quite ridiculous. SCOTUS is the most corrupt court ever and has no credibility and no ethics. They didn’t ban it for the military. Why is that? They didn’t address legacy admissions-otherwise known as white affirmative action. Why is that? Again, it’s all a lie. Nobody is entitled to go to these schools. Get over yourselves.

They didn't ban it for the military because academies are unique and no one briefed the issue

They didn't address legacy because not having a parent who graduated from Harvard is not a protected class

Please explain how military is unique? What does protected class even mean? If the goal is merit based admissions, and the data shows that most legacy admits would not be admitted without those preferences-then not addressing it leaves the motive naked and bare for all to see. The goal is not merit based and it never has been. It is to eliminate all programs designed to address historical discrimination against minorities. “Merit” is the cover. But if merit was truly the goal, an entire host of issues would be getting addressed. But they’re not. They never have been. And there’s never been outrage about those issues. There’s only outrage about programs that have targeted benefits to minorities. There’s 150 yrs of history that says so.

That's one way to advertise that you have no idea what the argument is even about

I know what you may think it’s about. But it’s REALLY about Edward Blum’s crusade and pitting minorities against one another. He started with a Caucasian woman in Texas. Came out and said “I have the wrong plaintiff”. So it’s not about Asians at all. So I may not quite know that legal term-but believe you me-I know what this is REALLY about. It’s about a bitter racist man. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The top schools know that they can’t remove diversity aspect from admissions.

I’m as a parent will not send my kid to a predominantly Asian school and the school knows it.

But you would send them to a predominantly white school, presumably. What about a predominantly black school?