Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

https://youtu.be/bMfjga_nDhw

People will skip over listening to the debate themselves, and skip right over the 2 hr. 43 min mark when he talks about Appendix 78:

"... the evidence showed that hundreds of white students with lower combined GPAs and SAT scores were admitted ahead of higher performing black students, latinX students who went to UNC..."

But people will sit up here and gloss over stats all of a sudden...

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians were deemed subhuman and unassimilable in the nineteenth century, but have become America’s exceptionally competent minority in the 21st century. This does not fit neatly within the progressive narrative. It is much easier to lower the bar for certain groups than to do the heavy lifting of improving the educational system for all.

You have foolishly bought into the conservative narrative that progressives are the problem. URMs are not the problem.

Can you explain why it is that Asian applicants need higher scores in order to get into top colleges? The right has a plausible explanation that was born out by the Harvard case, what is your alternative explanation?

Holistic admissions. Test scores are not the be all/end all that folks think they are.

So we're pretending that the Harvard personality scores that were shown to be lower across the board for asians are just causal racism and not a way to dock asian applicants in order to boost diversity? Or do you believe that Asian kids really do have inferior personalities?

This is a false premise. There is no diversity gain from decreasing the number of Asians students when it is primarily white students who are losing ground in admissions.

Admissions is zero sum. If it weren't for the personality scores, the Harvard student body would be far more Asian American

Only if test scores were the only admission criteria. Clearly, that is not the case. It's really hard for some people to accept that their excellent test scores can only get them so far. So is life.

Of course not, you have the personality score to insert racist biases. It's more necessary than ever now that Asian American students are realizing that ECs matter.

All that racism but Asian students make up approximately 30% of Harvard's student population. Oh the humanity and entitlement!

Is that correct? What would the percentage need to be for the Asian American's who don't get in to accept the outcome?

They want 100% admission.

It's never about percentage.
No individual should be discriminated based on race.
Period.

You would be ok if it were 100% Asian males?

Are you ok with racial discrimination?
Besides, there are schools with 100 females and 90% Blacks.

So that’s a yes? You think it’d be acceptable for a school to have 100% Asian male admittees?

Is it also ok to have 100% women and 90% black schools?

Bump.

[Anonymous]

The majority of Asian Americans support race conscious admissions.

Support:

Korean 82%
Indian 80%
Asian Americans Overall 69%
Filipino 67%
Vietnamese 67%
Japanese 65%
Chinese 59%

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaQl6pUoAA4Gir?format=jpg&name=small

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

But they still get plus points for being Black?

And they should. Do you think the racist cop pulling them over for no reason or shooting them stops to ask if they were born in the US or Africa? How about the rednecks shooting them when they go out for a jog? Do you think they care if the person is African or American born? How about the store security guard following them around? Does the guard do a passport check?

Just a few examples of how it’s different for black folks.

Now you understand it is very important thing to treat each individual as a person not as a part of grouping especially with skin color.

Of course it is, but do you see how black people end up behind before they even get to the finish line. I know you are capable of understanding. You just don’t want to because you are so concurred that some undeserving URM with lower test scores might keep your snowflake out of Harvard.

Stop whining. Asians get enough discrimination but its about overcoming the hardship and obstacles.. Colleges especially value that.

You are not helping your case.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

But they still get plus points for being Black?

And they should. Do you think the racist cop pulling them over for no reason or shooting them stops to ask if they were born in the US or Africa? How about the rednecks shooting them when they go out for a jog? Do you think they care if the person is African or American born? How about the store security guard following them around? Does the guard do a passport check?

Just a few examples of how it’s different for black folks.

Now you understand it is very important thing to treat each individual as a person not as a part of grouping especially with skin color.

Of course it is, but do you see how black people end up behind before they even get to the finish line. I know you are capable of understanding. You just don’t want to because you are so concurred that some undeserving URM with lower test scores might keep your snowflake out of Harvard.

Stop whining. Asians get enough discrimination but its about overcoming the hardship and obstacles.. Colleges especially value that.

You are not helping your case.

Overcome the hardship instead of whining and expecting free points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

Except that there was never such thing as 'personality tests'


Also we have clear explanation for low SAT.
They are not prepared well and bomb the test.

That is a very simplistic explanation as to why folks might not do well on the SAT. Too bad you have no ability to think about nuance. I guess the world needs black and white thinkers, too.

There are many reasons why folks might not do well on the SAT.

However, one of them is preparation. Asians study almost 4 times as many hours as Blacks and over twice as many hours as Whites. (https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~vramey/research/Tiger_Mothers.pdf) Other sources similar. It would be really weird if that didn't add up to a massive academic advantage for Asians. In fact, if they were even close to academic parity it would imply that Blacks were effortless geniuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a false premise. There is no diversity gain from decreasing the number of Asians students when it is primarily white students who are losing ground in admissions.

Yes, affirmative action is harmful to whites as well. If it were only whites being harmed by affirmative action, it should still be eliminated. That it harms Asians so substantially is a convenient way to use the left's arguments against the left.

You got it. This lawsuit is not about helping the model Asians, it's about preserving the white status quo. White male fragility must be protected at all cost.

I have a strong dislike for the Republican party but I will be the first to admit that their game plan is always topnotch.

It’s all about protecting white male fragility, eh? Honestly, some of you people are as bad as the QAnon folks with their conspiracies.

White males have been at the losing end of AA and I don't feel sorry for them.

Who is funding the plaintiff's case?

Beware the generosity of rich, white conservative men because when they "help" minorities (including Asians), it is always for their own good.

This. And never mind the fact that the number 1 beneficiary of AA is WHITE WOMEN!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just put on the application “were your ancestors even enslaved in the United States”

Because racial quotas in college admission have nothing to do with slavery.

This shows you don't understand the issue at all. It's not reparations, and it is not affirmative action.

It has to do with colleges wanting a representative balance in races to achieve their mission. If they can't then they can't get the students they want, for the same reason non AA people don't choose to attend excellent HBC schools. And in colleges where Asians are URM applicants, they get the same benefit from the policy, which is again proof it isn't racist.

These are facts.

. Interesting point. I’ve never understood why Asian students so rarely apply to SLACs, where they are underrepresented and could get in more easily, but would get a great education. It should not be Ivy or big state school. Especially males, who are greatly lacking at SLACs. I would say that an education at a highly ranked SLAC rivals Ivy League.

Check Asian population of top 15 SLAC schools and come back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

When and where was this?

DC. I attended a Public School. This was definitely the case at least through the ‘80s. I took the SAT once, Achievement tests in (I think) 3 subject areas, and one AP exam — which included a hand written essay. No coaching, no specific prep materials. I got into Harvard and Yale, among other schools. The good part about that is that it was a very low stress experience, because I had no idea that the scores were important.

No one advised me about choosing schools, or helped me in any way with the essays — which were different for each application.

So a lot more kids are taking the tests, a lot more kids are taking them more than once (I didn’t realize that you could do this then), and a lot of families and schools are doing coaching and tutoring — even in primary grades — with the eventual goal of scoring well on these tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the short-sighted Asian parents, enjoy your short-lived victory. The only real repercussion for the dismantling of AA is that mediocre white men will get an extra leg up on everyone else. This is just cementing white supremacy. Why would conservative white men advocate on behalf of Asian students unless they think they have something to gain from doing away from the current system?

not seeing this. Explain.

Not pp but currently male applicants at many competitive colleges get an admissions boost for being male (not at stem schools) as female applicants way outnumber them. As discussed in the Court arguments, that affirmative action is subject to only intermediate scrutiny (for sex/gender) instead of strict scrutiny (for race). So a likely outcome from this case is that white males will continue to enjoy affirmative action while people of color cannot. And legacy preference will also survive.

Whte males aren't the #1 beneficiary of AA though. White WOMEN are. They benefit MORE than racial minorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the short-sighted Asian parents, enjoy your short-lived victory. The only real repercussion for the dismantling of AA is that mediocre white men will get an extra leg up on everyone else. This is just cementing white supremacy. Why would conservative white men advocate on behalf of Asian students unless they think they have something to gain from doing away from the current system?

not seeing this. Explain.

Not pp but currently male applicants at many competitive colleges get an admissions boost for being male (not at stem schools) as female applicants way outnumber them. As discussed in the Court arguments, that affirmative action is subject to only intermediate scrutiny (for sex/gender) instead of strict scrutiny (for race). So a likely outcome from this case is that white males will continue to enjoy affirmative action while people of color cannot. And legacy preference will also survive.

Whte males aren't the #1 beneficiary of AA though. White WOMEN are. They benefit MORE than racial minorities.

People say that but I don’t think that’s true for college admissions and I’ve never seen stats that suggest this, especially now that girls do better than boys on average in HS. White women are definitely the main beneficiaries of federal contracting AA, largely because every white guy who wants federal contracts makes his wife the 51% owner of his business. It’s a total scam and you see it all the time in the construction industry, cleaning contractors, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

When and where was this?

DC. I attended a Public School. This was definitely the case at least through the ‘80s. I took the SAT once, Achievement tests in (I think) 3 subject areas, and one AP exam — which included a hand written essay. No coaching, no specific prep materials. I got into Harvard and Yale, among other schools. The good part about that is that it was a very low stress experience, because I had no idea that the scores were important.

No one advised me about choosing schools, or helped me in any way with the essays — which were different for each application.

So a lot more kids are taking the tests, a lot more kids are taking them more than once (I didn’t realize that you could do this then), and a lot of families and schools are doing coaching and tutoring — even in primary grades — with the eventual goal of scoring well on these tests.

Where was this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

Except that there was never such thing as 'personality tests'


Also we have clear explanation for low SAT.
They are not prepared well and bomb the test.

And all the biased questions that are easier for certain people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just put on the application “were your ancestors even enslaved in the United States”

Because racial quotas in college admission have nothing to do with slavery.

This shows you don't understand the issue at all. It's not reparations, and it is not affirmative action.

It has to do with colleges wanting a representative balance in races to achieve their mission. If they can't then they can't get the students they want, for the same reason non AA people don't choose to attend excellent HBC schools. And in colleges where Asians are URM applicants, they get the same benefit from the policy, which is again proof it isn't racist.

These are facts.

. Interesting point. I’ve never understood why Asian students so rarely apply to SLACs, where they are underrepresented and could get in more easily, but would get a great education. It should not be Ivy or big state school. Especially males, who are greatly lacking at SLACs. I would say that an education at a highly ranked SLAC rivals Ivy League.

Check Asian population of top 15 SLAC schools and come back

Not that PP but
Williams 12.3%
Amherst 14.9%
Pomona 16.3%
Swarthmore 15.7%
Wellesley 23%

I dunno, looks pretty good for Asians to me, what's the problem with SLACs for Asians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

Except that there was never such thing as 'personality tests'


Also we have clear explanation for low SAT.
They are not prepared well and bomb the test.

And all the biased questions that are easier for certain people

Certain people = studied hard and prepared