Cornell pulled their essay prompts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what happens when the mediocre kids still don’t get in? Will they start replacing the AOs next?

The problem was that mediocre kids with the right skin color were getting in over better kids with the wrong skin color.

+1

Where’s your evidence for these claims?

DP. SCOTUS ruling on Harvard lawsuit?

That ruling means Cornell’s essay on community is unlawful?! Seems like a stretch…the SCOTUS case found race-based affirmative action is unlawful.

They found Harvard practiced racial discrimination in college admissions. They don’t have to sue every single college.

Isn’t that also true for legacies?

And white lacrosse players?

Race: Strict scrutiny standard.
Gender: Intermediate scrutiny standard. SCOTUS never outlawed gender consideration.
Athlete, Legacy: not protected class. Schools are free to give preferences.
But yes, morally they should abandon athlete and legacy preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what happens when the mediocre kids still don’t get in? Will they start replacing the AOs next?

The problem was that mediocre kids with the right skin color were getting in over better kids with the wrong skin color.

+1

Where’s your evidence for these claims?

DP. SCOTUS ruling on Harvard lawsuit?

That ruling means Cornell’s essay on community is unlawful?! Seems like a stretch…the SCOTUS case found race-based affirmative action is unlawful.

They found Harvard practiced racial discrimination in college admissions. They don’t have to sue every single college.

Isn’t that also true for legacies?

And white lacrosse players?

Race: Strict scrutiny standard.
Gender: Intermediate scrutiny standard. SCOTUS never outlawed gender consideration.
Athlete, Legacy: not protected class. Schools are free to give preferences.
But yes, morally they should abandon athlete and legacy preferences.

Why do you care? There are thousands of institutions of higher learning in the United States. If you're not into college sports, why don't you go to one that doesn't focus on sports?

[Anonymous]

How are colleges going be able to prove they are being race neutral in admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are colleges going be able to prove they are being race neutral in admissions?

You have to prove they are not following the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are colleges going be able to prove they are being race neutral in admissions?

Relax your kids not going to Cornell. Cornell is woke anyway and it's in Ithaca which is as woke as can be for upstate New York. Send your kid somewhere better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are colleges going be able to prove they are being race neutral in admissions?

You have to prove they are not following the law.

UVA did okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are colleges going be able to prove they are being race neutral in admissions?

You have to prove they are not following the law.

UVA did okay.

Okay, send your kid to UVA. Uva is not progressive at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what happens when the mediocre kids still don’t get in? Will they start replacing the AOs next?

The problem was that mediocre kids with the right skin color were getting in over better kids with the wrong skin color.

+1

Where’s your evidence for these claims?

DP. SCOTUS ruling on Harvard lawsuit?

That ruling means Cornell’s essay on community is unlawful?! Seems like a stretch…the SCOTUS case found race-based affirmative action is unlawful.

They found Harvard practiced racial discrimination in college admissions. They don’t have to sue every single college.

Isn’t that also true for legacies?

And white lacrosse players?

Clearly you didn’t go to law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what happens when the mediocre kids still don’t get in? Will they start replacing the AOs next?

The problem was that mediocre kids with the right skin color were getting in over better kids with the wrong skin color.

+1

Where’s your evidence for these claims?

DP. SCOTUS ruling on Harvard lawsuit?

That ruling means Cornell’s essay on community is unlawful?! Seems like a stretch…the SCOTUS case found race-based affirmative action is unlawful.

They found Harvard practiced racial discrimination in college admissions. They don’t have to sue every single college.

Isn’t that also true for legacies?

And white lacrosse players?

Race: Strict scrutiny standard.
Gender: Intermediate scrutiny standard. SCOTUS never outlawed gender consideration.
Athlete, Legacy: not protected class. Schools are free to give preferences.
But yes, morally they should abandon athlete and legacy preferences.

Why do you care? There are thousands of institutions of higher learning in the United States. If you're not into college sports, why don't you go to one that doesn't focus on sports?

Mine is a legacy + D1 recruit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what happens when the mediocre kids still don’t get in? Will they start replacing the AOs next?

The problem was that mediocre kids with the right skin color were getting in over better kids with the wrong skin color.

+1

Where’s your evidence for these claims?

DP. SCOTUS ruling on Harvard lawsuit?

That ruling means Cornell’s essay on community is unlawful?! Seems like a stretch…the SCOTUS case found race-based affirmative action is unlawful.

They found Harvard practiced racial discrimination in college admissions. They don’t have to sue every single college.

Isn’t that also true for legacies?

And white lacrosse players?

Race: Strict scrutiny standard.
Gender: Intermediate scrutiny standard. SCOTUS never outlawed gender consideration.
Athlete, Legacy: not protected class. Schools are free to give preferences.
But yes, morally they should abandon athlete and legacy preferences.

Why do you care? There are thousands of institutions of higher learning in the United States. If you're not into college sports, why don't you go to one that doesn't focus on sports?

Mine is a legacy + D1 recruit.

Do you want your kid at woke Cornell or at some more conservative institution? Make up your mind

[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:So what happens when the mediocre kids still don’t get in? Will they start replacing the AOs next?

The problem was that mediocre kids with the right skin color were getting in over better kids with the wrong skin color.

+1

Where’s your evidence for these claims?

DP. SCOTUS ruling on Harvard lawsuit?

That ruling means Cornell’s essay on community is unlawful?! Seems like a stretch…the SCOTUS case found race-based affirmative action is unlawful.

They found Harvard practiced racial discrimination in college admissions. They don’t have to sue every single college.

Isn’t that also true for legacies?

And white lacrosse players?

Race: Strict scrutiny standard.
Gender: Intermediate scrutiny standard. SCOTUS never outlawed gender consideration.
Athlete, Legacy: not protected class. Schools are free to give preferences.
But yes, morally they should abandon athlete and legacy preferences.

Why do you care? There are thousands of institutions of higher learning in the United States. If you're not into college sports, why don't you go to one that doesn't focus on sports?

Mine is a legacy + D1 recruit.

Do you want your kid at woke Cornell or at some more conservative institution? Make up your mind

That's someone else. Mine is in at an ivy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, of course they don’t have to sue every college but the findings were pretty specific about how Harvard gave preferences to White applicants over Asians. Drawing that to an essay about community (very standard question for many colleges) is extreme. This administration is attacking higher education and bullying institutions into submission under the guise of undoing DEI.

That "standard" question was not standard prior to the SFFA lawsuit being filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, of course they don’t have to sue every college but the findings were pretty specific about how Harvard gave preferences to White applicants over Asians. Drawing that to an essay about community (very standard question for many colleges) is extreme. This administration is attacking higher education and bullying institutions into submission under the guise of undoing DEI.

+1. No maga actually want to attend any of these institutions. They just want to try to destroy them.

Not maga but we want to destroy all the woke nonsense in those institutions and we’re doing it. What are you gonna do about it? Cry me a river ?😅

I won't be wasting my day trying to destroy whatever Maga university or non university you find suitable for educating your kids. What a cheap, easy, waster of time and energy.

They are not trying to destroy the university, just the cancer growing within it. lets hope the patient can survive the chemotherapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two years ago, SCOTUS said no more using race the way it was being used.

Please explain why AOs would break the law. What’s in it for them?

It's like a religion for them. They want to do what they think is right and they know...just KNOW... that they can tell good racism from bad racism and they are only engaging in the good kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what happens when the mediocre kids still don’t get in? Will they start replacing the AOs next?

The problem was that mediocre kids with the right skin color were getting in over better kids with the wrong skin color.

+1

Where’s your evidence for these claims?

DP. SCOTUS ruling on Harvard lawsuit?

That ruling means Cornell’s essay on community is unlawful?! Seems like a stretch…the SCOTUS case found race-based affirmative action is unlawful.

They found Harvard practiced racial discrimination in college admissions. They don’t have to sue every single college.

Isn’t that also true for legacies?

And white lacrosse players?

Race: Strict scrutiny standard.
Gender: Intermediate scrutiny standard. SCOTUS never outlawed gender consideration.
Athlete, Legacy: not protected class. Schools are free to give preferences.
But yes, morally they should abandon athlete and legacy preferences.

Why do you care? There are thousands of institutions of higher learning in the United States. If you're not into college sports, why don't you go to one that doesn't focus on sports?

The Ivy league is a sports league.