Federal court allows plaintiffs records from four competitive high schools including TJ

[Anonymous]

"The federal court allowed the plaintiffs to demand records from four highly competitive high schools with large numbers of Asian-American students: Stuyvesant High School in New York; Monta Vista High School in Cupertino, Calif.; Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va.; and the Boston Latin School."

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/14/ivy-league-schools-brace-for-scrutiny-of-race-in-admissions/

[Anonymous]

This has been trudging along for years. And it makes sense. You need to compare apples to apples. If the plaintiffs are trying to argue Asians are held to higher standards, they need to compare GPAs from the same high schools and SATs from kids with the same level of rigor in the curriculum. This gives them the data to do so. It doesn't mean that the data will bear the plaintiffs out, or that they will win even if it does. It gives what they need to make an argument. It's not a ruling on the merits.

That said, it's probably a great time to be a white TJ kid with strong stats applying to an Ivy. They will want to admit white TJ kids with high SATs while they are being monitored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has been trudging along for years. And it makes sense. You need to compare apples to apples. If the plaintiffs are trying to argue Asians are held to higher standards, they need to compare GPAs from the same high schools and SATs from kids with the same level of rigor in the curriculum. This gives them the data to do so. It doesn't mean that the data will bear the plaintiffs out, or that they will win even if it does. It gives what they need to make an argument. It's not a ruling on the merits.

That said, it's probably a great time to be a white TJ kid with strong stats applying to an Ivy. They will want to admit white TJ kids with high SATs while they are being monitored.

White, black and Hispanic kids with high SAT and GPA have been doing great being accepted at top schools from TJ. Not so much for Asians with similar high SAT and GPA scores. Hopefully, the data from TJ and other top high schools will demonstrate that.

[Anonymous]

I am glad my kid decided not to bother applying to UVA. UVA should lose all federal funding except for financial aid.

[Anonymous]

One thing I don't understand is how schools are acting like fisher v Texas settled the law. Given the ages of Kennedy and rbg, if trump puts on two more gorsuch's to replace those two, affirmative action would completely be banned for publics and privates (through the mechanism that any school that takes fed funds cannot discriminate - and the privates all take fed funds through research grants).

Unlike Roe v Wade, affirmative action does Not have the same staying power IMO if such a court shift were to happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing I don't understand is how schools are acting like fisher v Texas settled the law. Given the ages of Kennedy and rbg, if trump puts on two more gorsuch's to replace those two, affirmative action would completely be banned for publics and privates (through the mechanism that any school that takes fed funds cannot discriminate - and the privates all take fed funds through research grants).

Unlike Roe v Wade, affirmative action does Not have the same staying power IMO if such a court shift were to happen

Because for the moment, Fisher is the law.

Besides, private schools, like Harvard and Princeton, are held to different standards than public ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I don't understand is how schools are acting like fisher v Texas settled the law. Given the ages of Kennedy and rbg, if trump puts on two more gorsuch's to replace those two, affirmative action would completely be banned for publics and privates (through the mechanism that any school that takes fed funds cannot discriminate - and the privates all take fed funds through research grants).

Unlike Roe v Wade, affirmative action does Not have the same staying power IMO if such a court shift were to happen

Because for the moment, Fisher is the law.

Besides, private schools, like Harvard and Princeton, are held to different standards than public ones.

The strategy is once the balance on scotus can overturn affirmative action, it'll be expanded to include all schools that take fed funds.

Hyp will then have to decide if they want to give up research dollars and fed aid to keep control of admissions policy

I get that for the moment fisher is the law - but schools are sounding like it is law until the end of time.

Not all scotus rulings have the same staying power. Fisher is not roe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I don't understand is how schools are acting like fisher v Texas settled the law. Given the ages of Kennedy and rbg, if trump puts on two more gorsuch's to replace those two, affirmative action would completely be banned for publics and privates (through the mechanism that any school that takes fed funds cannot discriminate - and the privates all take fed funds through research grants).

Unlike Roe v Wade, affirmative action does Not have the same staying power IMO if such a court shift were to happen

Because for the moment, Fisher is the law.

Besides, private schools, like Harvard and Princeton, are held to different standards than public ones.

The strategy is once the balance on scotus can overturn affirmative action, it'll be expanded to include all schools that take fed funds.

Hyp will then have to decide if they want to give up research dollars and fed aid to keep control of admissions policy

I get that for the moment fisher is the law - but schools are sounding like it is law until the end of time.

Not all scotus rulings have the same staying power. Fisher is not roe

That's an ... interesting view of law and policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I don't understand is how schools are acting like fisher v Texas settled the law. Given the ages of Kennedy and rbg, if trump puts on two more gorsuch's to replace those two, affirmative action would completely be banned for publics and privates (through the mechanism that any school that takes fed funds cannot discriminate - and the privates all take fed funds through research grants).

Unlike Roe v Wade, affirmative action does Not have the same staying power IMO if such a court shift were to happen

Because for the moment, Fisher is the law.

Besides, private schools, like Harvard and Princeton, are held to different standards than public ones.

The strategy is once the balance on scotus can overturn affirmative action, it'll be expanded to include all schools that take fed funds.

Hyp will then have to decide if they want to give up research dollars and fed aid to keep control of admissions policy

I get that for the moment fisher is the law - but schools are sounding like it is law until the end of time.

Not all scotus rulings have the same staying power. Fisher is not roe

That's an ... interesting view of law and policy.

+1. Imagine that. Schools are following the law, as established by SCOTUS. It seems like you are several steps ahead of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really think HYPS are going to be forced to turn into 90% soulless Asian grinds?

Maybe we should subpoena Tiger parents phone and email records to see if they paid an essay writer, college consultant, cram shop for exam data, and on and on.

Tell me how international kids can't speak a lick of English yet write flawless common app essays and score perfectly on the SAT.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I don't understand is how schools are acting like fisher v Texas settled the law. Given the ages of Kennedy and rbg, if trump puts on two more gorsuch's to replace those two, affirmative action would completely be banned for publics and privates (through the mechanism that any school that takes fed funds cannot discriminate - and the privates all take fed funds through research grants).

Unlike Roe v Wade, affirmative action does Not have the same staying power IMO if such a court shift were to happen

Because for the moment, Fisher is the law.

Besides, private schools, like Harvard and Princeton, are held to different standards than public ones.

The strategy is once the balance on scotus can overturn affirmative action, it'll be expanded to include all schools that take fed funds.

Hyp will then have to decide if they want to give up research dollars and fed aid to keep control of admissions policy

I get that for the moment fisher is the law - but schools are sounding like it is law until the end of time.

Not all scotus rulings have the same staying power. Fisher is not roe

That's an ... interesting view of law and policy.

+1. Imagine that. Schools are following the law, as established by SCOTUS. It seems like you are several steps ahead of yourself.

Colleges/universities must try to avoid using race (typically preference for URMs) in admissions decisions if at all possible in the first place and then only consider race in the least intrusive/discriminatory manner if race is to be considered at all under the fisher. Top universities are not doing this and so that is a problem.

[Anonymous]

No race on applications, any mention of race clubs or orgs must be scrubbed as well

[Anonymous]

There will always be a second dimension in admissions.

http://time.com/3767996/how-mit-rates-applicants/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really think HYPS are going to be forced to turn into 90% soulless Asian grinds?

Maybe we should subpoena Tiger parents phone and email records to see if they paid an essay writer, college consultant, cram shop for exam data, and on and on.

Tell me how international kids can't speak a lick of English yet write flawless common app essays and score perfectly on the SAT.

Really ? Why do you think that your child can't compete on equal objective evaluation with an Asian child ? Why do you think that your child can't learn to write well in multiple languages ? Why do you think that you cannot buy the help that you believe that Asian parents have for their children? Tutoring is the same price regardless of the race of the student. The same is available to anyone who can pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I don't understand is how schools are acting like fisher v Texas settled the law. Given the ages of Kennedy and rbg, if trump puts on two more gorsuch's to replace those two, affirmative action would completely be banned for publics and privates (through the mechanism that any school that takes fed funds cannot discriminate - and the privates all take fed funds through research grants).

Unlike Roe v Wade, affirmative action does Not have the same staying power IMO if such a court shift were to happen

Because for the moment, Fisher is the law.

Besides, private schools, like Harvard and Princeton, are held to different standards than public ones.

The strategy is once the balance on scotus can overturn affirmative action, it'll be expanded to include all schools that take fed funds.

Hyp will then have to decide if they want to give up research dollars and fed aid to keep control of admissions policy

I get that for the moment fisher is the law - but schools are sounding like it is law until the end of time.

Not all scotus rulings have the same staying power. Fisher is not roe

That's an ... interesting view of law and policy.

+1. Imagine that. Schools are following the law, as established by SCOTUS. It seems like you are several steps ahead of yourself.

Colleges/universities must try to avoid using race (typically preference for URMs) in admissions decisions if at all possible in the first place and then only consider race in the least intrusive/discriminatory manner if race is to be considered at all under the fisher. Top universities are not doing this and so that is a problem.

+1000