SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Good luck with that legal theory!

Sometimes there is proof. Emails, texts and other preserved communication.

Proof of what -- wanting to promote geographic diversity because of a belief that it will make students more expansive in their thinking.

You are not going to find emails and texts of admissions committees discussing how their recruitment of a geographically diverse class is just an end run around being forced to admit more asian kids because that's not what it is (except in your own broken mind).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Good luck with that legal theory!

Sometimes there is proof. Emails, texts and other preserved communication.

Proof of what -- wanting to promote geographic diversity because of a belief that it will make students more expansive in their thinking.

You are not going to find emails and texts of admissions committees discussing how their recruitment of a geographically diverse class is just an end run around being forced to admit more asian kids because that's not what it is (except in your own broken mind).

Harvard lost because of evidences and proofs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Good luck with that legal theory!

Sometimes there is proof. Emails, texts and other preserved communication.

Proof of what -- wanting to promote geographic diversity because of a belief that it will make students more expansive in their thinking.

You are not going to find emails and texts of admissions committees discussing how their recruitment of a geographically diverse class is just an end run around being forced to admit more asian kids because that's not what it is (except in your own broken mind).

Harvard lost because of evidences and proofs.

This is not correct at all. This was not a gotcha case where the court found that Harvard was secretly biased against asian applicants. Harvard had an explicitly race-conscious admissions system (affirmative action -- you might have heard of it since it was what pretty much all schools have been doing for decades) and the court decided that even though the policies were implemented with good intentions and in good faith (meaning not with the intention of discrimination) they still violated the constitution because according to the court they were not narrowly tailored enough to a "compelling government interest."

In other words the court found that Harvard had acted in good faith and the that the goal of the policy was sound but that the policy itself did not match the goal well enough. This is an incredibly narrow ruling and one that 100% leaves room for Harvard and other schools to continue to use a holistic admissions process that emphasizes diversity as long as that process in not explicitly race-conscious. Which means schools can absolutely use geography and high school and background. In fact the SC even says there is nothing to prevent schools from considering race as part of the student's overall background and experience via how it is discussed in for example a personal essay.

Harvard did not lose because of "evidences and proofs." Harvard lost very narrowly because a more restrictive interpretation of the 14th amendment won the day within a divided Supreme Court.

And a year later the court declined to take the TJ admissions appeal so the 4th circuit decision that permit's TJ's holistic admissions approach which has had the effect of greatly reducing the percentage of asian students at TJ while boosting the percentages of black and hispanic students is viewed as the current standard for holistic admissions.

I think someone who is so passionate about ensuring that only people who deserve it gain admission to selective schools should understand what I just described instead of having this childish and simplistic interpretation of the current state of race in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You think only white families engage in test prep and tutoring in order to game admissions testing. Hmm okay. So students scoring 1560 or 1590 are just walking into the SAT at age 17 and acing it with absolutely no prep whatsoever and not *years* of pushing from parents to prep for the exam or enrollment in schools with curriculums geared toward standardized tests and no use of test prep agencies or tutors. Interesting.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that there are kids out there who are just that smart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Good luck with that legal theory!

Sometimes there is proof. Emails, texts and other preserved communication.

Proof of what -- wanting to promote geographic diversity because of a belief that it will make students more expansive in their thinking.

You are not going to find emails and texts of admissions committees discussing how their recruitment of a geographically diverse class is just an end run around being forced to admit more asian kids because that's not what it is (except in your own broken mind).

Harvard lost because of evidences and proofs.

This is not correct at all. This was not a gotcha case where the court found that Harvard was secretly biased against asian applicants. Harvard had an explicitly race-conscious admissions system (affirmative action -- you might have heard of it since it was what pretty much all schools have been doing for decades) and the court decided that even though the policies were implemented with good intentions and in good faith (meaning not with the intention of discrimination) they still violated the constitution because according to the court they were not narrowly tailored enough to a "compelling government interest."

In other words the court found that Harvard had acted in good faith and the that the goal of the policy was sound but that the policy itself did not match the goal well enough. This is an incredibly narrow ruling and one that 100% leaves room for Harvard and other schools to continue to use a holistic admissions process that emphasizes diversity as long as that process in not explicitly race-conscious. Which means schools can absolutely use geography and high school and background. In fact the SC even says there is nothing to prevent schools from considering race as part of the student's overall background and experience via how it is discussed in for example a personal essay.

Harvard did not lose because of "evidences and proofs." Harvard lost very narrowly because a more restrictive interpretation of the 14th amendment won the day within a divided Supreme Court.

And a year later the court declined to take the TJ admissions appeal so the 4th circuit decision that permit's TJ's holistic admissions approach which has had the effect of greatly reducing the percentage of asian students at TJ while boosting the percentages of black and hispanic students is viewed as the current standard for holistic admissions.

I think someone who is so passionate about ensuring that only people who deserve it gain admission to selective schools should understand what I just described instead of having this childish and simplistic interpretation of the current state of race in admissions.

I do think this troll is a teen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

Yes as long as they can't prove you were using geography as an artifice for racial discrimination.

Even then, it’s not like people from New York are a protected class. If Harvard only wants to take students from Miami, no one other than their donors are stopping them

+1 Harvard could decided it only wanted rural applicants tomorrow and this would result in a class that was 60% white and 35% black and 4% Native and this would be considered absolutely legal even if not one of those students scored over a 1500 on the SAT.

The PP just cannot conceptualize the idea that a Harvard degree is not a public good that is supposed to be fairly distributed via some kind of government mechanism. It's a private good that Harvard can choose to sell to whomever it wants as long as they don't discriminate based on race. But "not discriminate based on race" does NOT mean only admitting the highest scoring applicants and it never ever will.

Well said. Thank you. PLEASE let the annoying poster on this thread see this and understand.

No one wants a school of only high test scores ,same interests, same race.

Until you said race, there wasn't a problem with your post but once you say you want to restrict having too many of one race, that makes you a racist.

I’m a racist. I don’t want my kids to attend a school that is 100% white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think only white families engage in test prep and tutoring in order to game admissions testing. Hmm okay. So students scoring 1560 or 1590 are just walking into the SAT at age 17 and acing it with absolutely no prep whatsoever and not *years* of pushing from parents to prep for the exam or enrollment in schools with curriculums geared toward standardized tests and no use of test prep agencies or tutors. Interesting.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that there are kids out there who are just that smart?

+1 I mean, if prepping is taking a few sample tests, both free and a book bought on Amazon, then I guess my DC did prep. Took the test once, got 1580.

Yes, DC is that *smart*. Coasted through magnet programs.

Do we "push" our kids to study and get good grades? Insofar as they take their studies seriously, yes. Expecting straight As and super high test scores? No. I'll be happy if DC#2 gets a 1350+.

Perhaps more parents should "push" their kids to get better grades, then the schools wouldn't have to dumb down the curriculum so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

This.

I think some posters never contemplated that there are reasons why the super high scoring and high GPA Asian American applicants weren't getting spots at all the top schools that had nothing to do with race. Schools don't actually want classes of super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers. They want a good mix of high achieving students who are naturally curious and intelligent and have a broad range of strengths and interests and also reflect a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. They used to use race explicitly to accomplish this and now they can't so they use other things but their priorities have not shifted.

Plus a mix of degrees/majors. They can't have 1600 CS majors.

Not all asians major in CS or even STEM.

Asian american men are more likely to major in economics than any other racial group of men. Asians american women are more like to major in economics than any other groups of women.
Asian american men are more likely to pursue an MBA than any other racial group of men. Same for women

Asians are under-represented in humanities. This will change as asians get wealthier and a legit asian upper class develops, one where the kids don't need to worry about money for generations.

I was referring to diversity of majors. No school wants 1600 CS majors of any race.

It’s just another aspect of diversity that may explain why even kids with the very tippy top academic #s still only had ~50% acceptance rate at Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

This.

I think some posters never contemplated that there are reasons why the super high scoring and high GPA Asian American applicants weren't getting spots at all the top schools that had nothing to do with race. Schools don't actually want classes of super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers. They want a good mix of high achieving students who are naturally curious and intelligent and have a broad range of strengths and interests and also reflect a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. They used to use race explicitly to accomplish this and now they can't so they use other things but their priorities have not shifted.

Plus a mix of degrees/majors. They can't have 1600 CS majors.

The 1600 CS majors most likely will run laps around the liberal arts majors in their majors. Or else why are LA majors allowed to take dumbed down versions of science and math classes to fulfill requirements? Should science majors be taking phonics classes then?

Sounds like a business opportunity for you. Go start a university with just CS majors.

Because private universities will make their own business decisions about what majors to offer and who they want to fill those seats.

[Anonymous]

Seriously. It's like PP doesn't understand free market capitalism.

[Anonymous]

Admission officers know the laws that affect their work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think only white families engage in test prep and tutoring in order to game admissions testing. Hmm okay. So students scoring 1560 or 1590 are just walking into the SAT at age 17 and acing it with absolutely no prep whatsoever and not *years* of pushing from parents to prep for the exam or enrollment in schools with curriculums geared toward standardized tests and no use of test prep agencies or tutors. Interesting.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that there are kids out there who are just that smart?

+1 I mean, if prepping is taking a few sample tests, both free and a book bought on Amazon, then I guess my DC did prep. Took the test once, got 1580.

Yes, DC is that *smart*. Coasted through magnet programs.

Do we "push" our kids to study and get good grades? Insofar as they take their studies seriously, yes. Expecting straight As and super high test scores? No. I'll be happy if DC#2 gets a 1350+.

Perhaps more parents should "push" their kids to get better grades, then the schools wouldn't have to dumb down the curriculum so much.

Yes there are of course kids that are that smart (and also just naturally good test takers). I knew a kid who got a 1600 on the SAT on the first try and they were just smart and didn't do a bunch of extra prep. Also she was from a family with 6 kids and none of her siblings scored that high. They were all bright but she was an outlier.

However in 2024 if you don't think that a significant portion of the kids scoring over 1500 on the SAT are being heavily prepped by very well-resourced parents and schools that seek to maximize standardized test scores of students than you are naive. Also if you spend any time at all looking at the way SAT scores correlate to socioeconomic levels and you'll realize that wealthier kids start of at a huge advantage. If you have two kids with the same natural ability who put in the same level of self-motivated prep but one is working class and the other is upper class then the upper class kid will get a higher SAT score every day of the week. Growing up privileged with educated parents and having fewer stressors in the home and attending better schools will result in higher test scores regardless of how smart you are. And growing up poor with uneducated parents and a lot of stress related to poverty and institutionalize racism and attending failing schools will depress your score even if you are a very smart and hard working self-starter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admission officers know the laws that affect their work.

And there's no law that prohibits them from making admissions decisions based on departmental capacity. If Harvard gets 2,000 applicants this fall for the class of 2029 who want to major in CS and have 4.0/1600, but the CS department doesn't have enough professors and resources to support more than X students, guess what? The Supreme Court decision doesn't require Harvard to accept more than X CS major applicants simply because their stats are top-notch and higher than those applicants who want to major in something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I agree, there should be a similar number of white and asian students at most of these schools except at the MOST selective schools because at the 1550+ level asians outnumber whites by 2::1

Schools are allowed to decide that, above a certain very high score, differences don't matter for admissions purposes.

But they are not allowed to select the white student over the asians student because they want more white kids.

But if the kind of diversity that they're seeking regarding geography or extracurricular activities has the coincidental effect of admitting white over Asian applicants, that's still allowed.

This.

I think some posters never contemplated that there are reasons why the super high scoring and high GPA Asian American applicants weren't getting spots at all the top schools that had nothing to do with race. Schools don't actually want classes of super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers. They want a good mix of high achieving students who are naturally curious and intelligent and have a broad range of strengths and interests and also reflect a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. They used to use race explicitly to accomplish this and now they can't so they use other things but their priorities have not shifted.

Start seeing Asian Americans as people.

No YOU start seeing them as people.

Do you actually know any Asian American students who attend top colleges? I do and guess what-- they are not universally top scoring hyper-achievers in academics.

DP here.
Are you daft? The PP is literally admonishing his PP about seeing asians as "super intense heavily "pushed" academic achievers." and how they use race to avoid this.

Also, I know a lot of asians at top colleges and they are almost universally top scoring hyper achievers in academics, sometimes they are recruited athletes but even then their academics are very good. None of them are surprised they got in but all of them were afraid they wouldn't.

They are not all in STEM.

where are you getting the notion that anyone thinks all asians are in stem?

They did not all attend "top" high schools. Like the kids if other races at these schools, they tend to be wickedly smart and hard working while also being well rounded with genuine curiosity in their areas of academic study as well as personal hobbies and passions. They are different from one another and from other students they went to HS with and from of at debts at their university. To my knowledge none if them had over a 1550 on the SAT.

These students -- these Asian American students -- were admitted to these schools not because they are the smartest kids in the country or got the highest test scores. They were admitted because they are the whole package. If say the same thing about the black and Hispanic and white and native and mixed race kids I know at these schools. If you spend a lot of time around students at top schools you come to recognize the type and it becomes obvious why these schools don't just base admissions on test scores.

Which is why your obsession with the test scores of Asian American applicants as compared to other applicants misguided. You are missing the forest for ONE tree.

Why do people act like the princeton review ad is actually true. Doing well on the sat tells you more than how well they can do on the sat. Standardized tests measure a real thing that correlates with pretty much every academic metric you can think of except things like drive and motivation. Standardized tests are probably one the best measure we have of "wickedly smart" GPA is probably a good measure of hard working.

When you see large gaps in SAT scores between racial groups and these caps are persistent and consistent over time, it is natural to be concerned about racial discrimination.
Stop trying to racially discriminate directly or indirectly and these concerns go away. We understand it will probably take years so I hope they keep suing for years until they stop trying to construct classes around race.

Asian recruited athletes?

Which sport?

Soccer?
Basketball?
Football?

🤣🤣🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:However in 2024 if you don't think that a significant portion of the kids scoring over 1500 on the SAT are being heavily prepped by very well-resourced parents and schools that seek to maximize standardized test scores of students than you are naive.

1500 is a very good score in 2024, but it's really not that impressive. It basically equates to a 1440 from when most of us took the test 30 to 40 years ago.