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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

This still happens, including "Saturday school."

And when white UMC parents do the same thing, it's called "enrichment"

I’m a white UMC parent of one in high school and one in middle school. I don’t know a single white UMC kid who has gone to Saturday School or done any form of academic enrichment other than SAT or ACT prep. Weekends are generally for sports, hanging out with friends and going on trips with family.

_________________________________
You are a white UMC family that prioritizes athletics and family time, what is wrong with Asians focusing on education. BTW, now most UMC Asian families are also focused on athletics or other EC in addition to academics because they know they have to be better that all other races to get into the colleges of their choice. In NYC, it is many low income Asian families who attend cram schools to get out of poverty. I don't see anything wrong with it. My parents sacrificed a lot to send me to a top college, I hold them in the highest regard for affording me all the opportunities. Even today despite being modestly off, my parents never ask me for money and are there for childcare at any time. I have never cried about lost childhood or filling out bubbles - I am just grateful for their dedication. Today I can send me kids to private schools only because they sacrificed for me. My children have the luxury of exploring different EC because money is no longer a constraint. They do not need to go to cram schools because my husband and I are well educated and provide a home environment which is already enriched.

Get rid of non-revenue sports and legacy - we will see how many UMC white families will focus on those sports once they no longer factor into admissions.

Also, Asians score higher on every measure, including EC, interview and recommendations when compared to whites. The only place they score lower is in "personality" which is a Harvard made up section by admissions officer who has never even met the kid. See the link below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yjbefg/oc_how_harvard_admissions_rates_asian_american/

"Based on the original source
, the overall rejection rate for Asian Americans and White students is almost identical, 95%.

A (very) slightly higher proportion of Asian American applicants receive an overall score of 1 or 2 (the top categories) than White American applicants (4.84% vs. 4.43%). Of those with a score of 1 or 2, 66% of Asian American student and 66% of White students are accepted.

In short, White and Asian American students have similar score distributions and acceptance rates (even when you condition on overall score).

Among Asian American applicants, 82% have a "poor" personal rating score (>=3), while 79% of White applicants are in the same category. Nevertheless, Asian American students with a poor personal rating make up 27% of accepted Asian American students, while White students with a poor personal rating score only make up 16% of accepted White students. To put that another way, if you have a poor personal rating score, you're 65% more likely to get accepted if you are Asian American than if you are White. I would assume that this is because poorly rated Asian American students are more likely to have higher scores in the other categories.

As I stated in a previous comment, the personal rating is based on
teacher recommendations, counselor ratings, and student essays (which don't appear elsewhere on the chart). So it seems likely to me that the difference in personal rating is based on how admissions committee members are rating essays. That doesn't mean racial bias isn't responsible for this difference, but it also don't mean that it definitely is."

from your reddit link.

I would also be interested to know who is interviewing the candidates....are kids interviewed by alumnis who meet their same demographic? Ive seen plenty of Ivy interviews and they all seem to match.....white women with white girl, white men with white boy, Asian male with asian boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

This still happens, including "Saturday school."

That’s called hard work. Not “legalized cheating.”

No that is not "hard work". Only "certain people" think of it that way. Colleges want to find unicorns with the SAT not somebody that studied and studied and studied for it.

However colleges may see it, it is still hard work and dedication.

I don't see it as hard work. I see working as a janitor in the morning before school starts, or working all night at a restaurant, or doing construction, caring for you 3 siblings and your sick mother ... hard work.

Do you know what you are even talking about? Spending time to work, read, and to study while others play is definitely hard work. And in case you didn't realize, Asians very often hold down jobs and care for siblings while studying, especially as many are recent immigrants with 2 working parents.

Reading a book and filling in little, tiny bubbles is not hard work. It does indicate somebody that is unable to speak for themselves, does not follow their passion and are afraid of their parents.

All is hard work, some may be by necessity, some optional. The jobs in the first paragraph should be considered. Didn't the Mother Jones article say applicants are not given points for jobs, though? I believe that SES diversity should be and is considered.

Stop saying it's "hard work"... studying is not hard work.

You are an idiot. Obviously cruised through some weaksauce liberal arts program. If you'd majored in STEM, you'd know studying is hard as hell.

I was a STEM major and my job is pretty gravy compared to a chef, or a communications major covering the war. The information is more complex but my brain works that way. I worked longer hours in the computer lab but it wasn’t “hard” work, it was a lot of work.

I think you mean it’s hard to realize your brain is not made for STEM.

I'm also in STEM. I work long AND hard hours. Would never put down another job though, a job that I've never done.

It’s so hard you are posting here.

Go work construction then come back and say your job is hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

This still happens, including "Saturday school."

And when white UMC parents do the same thing, it's called "enrichment"

I’m a white UMC parent of one in high school and one in middle school. I don’t know a single white UMC kid who has gone to Saturday School or done any form of academic enrichment other than SAT or ACT prep. Weekends are generally for sports, hanging out with friends and going on trips with family.

_________________________________
You are a white UMC family that prioritizes athletics and family time, what is wrong with Asians focusing on education. BTW, now most UMC Asian families are also focused on athletics or other EC in addition to academics because they know they have to be better that all other races to get into the colleges of their choice. In NYC, it is many low income Asian families who attend cram schools to get out of poverty. I don't see anything wrong with it. My parents sacrificed a lot to send me to a top college, I hold them in the highest regard for affording me all the opportunities. Even today despite being modestly off, my parents never ask me for money and are there for childcare at any time. I have never cried about lost childhood or filling out bubbles - I am just grateful for their dedication. Today I can send me kids to private schools only because they sacrificed for me. My children have the luxury of exploring different EC because money is no longer a constraint. They do not need to go to cram schools because my husband and I are well educated and provide a home environment which is already enriched.

Get rid of non-revenue sports and legacy - we will see how many UMC white families will focus on those sports once they no longer factor into admissions.

Also, Asians score higher on every measure, including EC, interview and recommendations when compared to whites. The only place they score lower is in "personality" which is a Harvard made up section by admissions officer who has never even met the kid. See the link below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yjbefg/oc_how_harvard_admissions_rates_asian_american/

"Based on the original source
, the overall rejection rate for Asian Americans and White students is almost identical, 95%.

A (very) slightly higher proportion of Asian American applicants receive an overall score of 1 or 2 (the top categories) than White American applicants (4.84% vs. 4.43%). Of those with a score of 1 or 2, 66% of Asian American student and 66% of White students are accepted.

In short, White and Asian American students have similar score distributions and acceptance rates (even when you condition on overall score).

Among Asian American applicants, 82% have a "poor" personal rating score (>=3), while 79% of White applicants are in the same category. Nevertheless, Asian American students with a poor personal rating make up 27% of accepted Asian American students, while White students with a poor personal rating score only make up 16% of accepted White students. To put that another way, if you have a poor personal rating score, you're 65% more likely to get accepted if you are Asian American than if you are White. I would assume that this is because poorly rated Asian American students are more likely to have higher scores in the other categories.

As I stated in a previous comment, the personal rating is based on
teacher recommendations, counselor ratings, and student essays (which don't appear elsewhere on the chart). So it seems likely to me that the difference in personal rating is based on how admissions committee members are rating essays. That doesn't mean racial bias isn't responsible for this difference, but it also don't mean that it definitely is."

from your reddit link.

I would also be interested to know who is interviewing the candidates....are kids interviewed by alumnis who meet their same demographic? Ive seen plenty of Ivy interviews and they all seem to match.....white women with white girl, white men with white boy, Asian male with asian boy.

I also want to add the following:

. Performance is not the only important indicator for organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

[Anonymous]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yjbefg/oc_how_harvard_admissions_rates_asian_american/

Asians even scored higher from personal interviewers who actually talked to the students LMAO

[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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

Those schools are the defendants in this case. The fact that there are other schools is not an excuse for them to consider race in admissions.

[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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

Why are you so mad??

It's not too much to ask for transparency in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If they added seats to accommodate "diversity slots" then it's not zero sum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

It does in order for the hundreds of posts in this thread that claim it's deliberate to be true. I don't have a strong opinion about whatever decision SCOTUS makes, because I know colleges will find other ways to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I do have a problem with people claiming that college admission offices are deliberately excluding certain people based on their race, because it's a serious accusation that has no basis in fact.

[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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

[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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

It does in order for the hundreds of posts in this thread that claim it's deliberate to be true. I don't have a strong opinion about whatever decision SCOTUS makes, because I know colleges will find other ways to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I do have a problem with people claiming that college admission offices are deliberately excluding certain people based on their race, because it's a serious accusation that has no basis in fact.

Do you have a way to explain Harvard's personality scores other than racism?

[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:

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying. They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

This still happens, including "Saturday school."

That’s called hard work. Not “legalized cheating.”

No that is not "hard work". Only "certain people" think of it that way. Colleges want to find unicorns with the SAT not somebody that studied and studied and studied for it.

However colleges may see it, it is still hard work and dedication.

I don't see it as hard work. I see working as a janitor in the morning before school starts, or working all night at a restaurant, or doing construction, caring for you 3 siblings and your sick mother ... hard work.

Do you know what you are even talking about? Spending time to work, read, and to study while others play is definitely hard work. And in case you didn't realize, Asians very often hold down jobs and care for siblings while studying, especially as many are recent immigrants with 2 working parents.

Reading a book and filling in little, tiny bubbles is not hard work. It does indicate somebody that is unable to speak for themselves, does not follow their passion and are afraid of their parents.

All is hard work, some may be by necessity, some optional. The jobs in the first paragraph should be considered. Didn't the Mother Jones article say applicants are not given points for jobs, though? I believe that SES diversity should be and is considered.

Stop saying it's "hard work"... studying is not hard work.

You are an idiot. Obviously cruised through some weaksauce liberal arts program. If you'd majored in STEM, you'd know studying is hard as hell.

I was a STEM major and my job is pretty gravy compared to a chef, or a communications major covering the war. The information is more complex but my brain works that way. I worked longer hours in the computer lab but it wasn’t “hard” work, it was a lot of work.

I think you mean it’s hard to realize your brain is not made for STEM.

I'm also in STEM. I work long AND hard hours. Would never put down another job though, a job that I've never done.

It’s so hard you are posting here.

Go work construction then come back and say your job is hard.

My job is mentally hard, not just physical

[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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

It does in order for the hundreds of posts in this thread that claim it's deliberate to be true. I don't have a strong opinion about whatever decision SCOTUS makes, because I know colleges will find other ways to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I do have a problem with people claiming that college admission offices are deliberately excluding certain people based on their race, because it's a serious accusation that has no basis in fact.

Do you have a way to explain Harvard's personality scores other than racism?

if you see the post I made above the committee also uses essays in their score compared to personal interviewers. And lets not forget that the alumni interviewer has two separate sections: their overall review and their likeability review. The interviewers dont actually rate them all that much better compared to the scores white interviewers get. Teachers dont rate them better. Guidance counselors actually rate them worse. Committee is the only one with access to their essays. There is your difference.

[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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.