Predictions for what happens when the SC bans affirmative action?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

But that is the goal right? They don’t want the American experiment- grounded in concepts like liberty, equality and property- to succeed. They want chaos, friction and ultimately some kind of left wing dictatorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

So what is your solution? Whine endlessly about it? Or have no diversity and every racial group sticks to themselves? It’s too late for that. This country is diverse and we’d better continue to figure out ways to get along and include everyone because diversity isn’t going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

So what is your solution? Whine endlessly about it? Or have no diversity and every racial group sticks to themselves? It’s too late for that. This country is diverse and we’d better continue to figure out ways to get along and include everyone because diversity isn’t going anywhere.

Seems like AAs are the only group needing assistance. Look at the makeup of colleges in Texas. Unfortunately, AAs are still very much struggling in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

So what is your solution? Whine endlessly about it? Or have no diversity and every racial group sticks to themselves? It’s too late for that. This country is diverse and we’d better continue to figure out ways to get along and include everyone because diversity isn’t going anywhere.

The issue there is that “include everyone” means racial quotas for everything, everywhere. This necessarily entails systematic discrimination against higher performing groups, in the college rat race this is whites and especially Asians. Few are willing to honestly defend that practice, which is unpopular (affirmative action loses basically every time it’s put to a vote), so instead affirmative action advocates 1. deny the obvious and 2. Insist that the losers shut up. This of course is desperately unfair to those who are on the losing end of “inclusion” initiatives, who are denied opportunities they would have obtained in a race-neutral procedure, but worse still they get gaslit and told the URMs that benefit from these efforts are “actually more qualified.” And of course even implying that any particular URM benefited from affirmative action practices is an unspeakable sin, which will get you thrown into the outer darkness as you have demonstrated you are not with the program. “Now that the country is diverse America has to radically change our values and practices to ensure inclusion” is not a message that is going to cause social harmony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

This appears to be an argument that Jews, Asians, and Catholics should not be allowed at Harvard or Yale (or on the Supreme Court). I think that ship has sailed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

So America so far managed to stay intact(ish) as a society despite being likely the most diverse society in the world. I have a real concern about this intactness once the Supreme Court cancels affirmative action and we likely lost half of more of African American admits from top universities, especially from the public schools (private institutions will likely find a way to hold on). We have been telling African American, and to a lesser extent Latinx, applicants for decades that all they have to do is get good grades in school, while everyone else has to cure cancer in addition. If affirmative action is abruptly cancelled, these students will not be competitive for top admissions, and will not regain that competitiveness for generations. I am concerned about society staying cohesive. If that falls apart, we would wish for the world where 25% of admissions to top schools went to somewhat less deserving students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

By creating a diverse student body, they are creating an environment where everyone can flourish. This in fact is necessary for the students to be their best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

So America so far managed to stay intact(ish) as a society despite being likely the most diverse society in the world. I have a real concern about this intactness once the Supreme Court cancels affirmative action and we likely lost half of more of African American admits from top universities, especially from the public schools (private institutions will likely find a way to hold on). We have been telling African American, and to a lesser extent Latinx, applicants for decades that all they have to do is get good grades in school, while everyone else has to cure cancer in addition. If affirmative action is abruptly cancelled, these students will not be competitive for top admissions, and will not regain that competitiveness for generations. I am concerned about society staying cohesive. If that falls apart, we would wish for the world where 25% of admissions to top schools went to somewhat less deserving students.

Most likely this decision won't have much impact. Schools will find ways to admit who they want and life will continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

But that is the goal right? They don’t want the American experiment- grounded in concepts like liberty, equality and property- to succeed. They want chaos, friction and ultimately some kind of left wing dictatorship.

Yes that would be so awesome! Maybe we could get a progressive like Reagan who handed out amnesty to illegals or Nixon who created the EPA and wanted national health care! The RWNJs are nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

So America so far managed to stay intact(ish) as a society despite being likely the most diverse society in the world. I have a real concern about this intactness once the Supreme Court cancels affirmative action and we likely lost half of more of African American admits from top universities, especially from the public schools (private institutions will likely find a way to hold on). We have been telling African American, and to a lesser extent Latinx, applicants for decades that all they have to do is get good grades in school, while everyone else has to cure cancer in addition. If affirmative action is abruptly cancelled, these students will not be competitive for top admissions, and will not regain that competitiveness for generations. I am concerned about society staying cohesive. If that falls apart, we would wish for the world where 25% of admissions to top schools went to somewhat less deserving students.

Most likely this decision won't have much impact. Schools will find ways to admit who they want and life will continue.

I sure hope so, and I say this as a mom of a white unhooked student who got to HYPSM by going far above and beyond the school program. I would rather she ended up at UMD and we have an intact society. No one benefits from civil strife.

Affirmative action does need to be phased out because living in a society where having a Cuban grandfather somehow improves one's odds of entering a top university is also destructive, but we cannot drop it immediately. It could end badly for the society as a whole, while certainly benefiting the few students who would be admitted to top schools for actual achievements.

I guess I want it all. I want our society to grow top talent (i.e. more meritocracy)2 while I also feel that it would be duplicitous to drop this immense difference in admissions standards on unsuspecting African American students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

By creating a diverse student body, they are creating an environment where everyone can flourish. This in fact is necessary for the students to be their best.

That's the party line and it sounds nice. It still means having different standards for admission based on race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This topic keeps being posted about and I don’t think it’s black people starting these threads. I really don’t think black people, the group that AA supposedly favors the most, are that concerned about how the SC will rule. Whether AA stays or not colleges will still build a diverse class.

It’s white people who think a black kid took their child’s spot who are starting these threads. A ruling banning AA will not work out like they think it will. They will find another group to blame. Watch out Asians.

I’m black with two kids in high school and don’t give a f$@# about the SC ruling. There are plenty of colleges out there. The ironic thing is there WAY more white people thinking they got screwed than black kids at any of these colleges. This isn’t going to solve your perceived problem.

Carry on though with 10 threads a day on this topic hoping somehow Sally can go to Harvard. Newsflash: it’s not happening.

So you disagree that AAs have been given preferential treatment in admissions? Seems delusional to think that and also think it won’t affect your kids.

My high stats kids want to go to an HBCU. DH and I went to Ivy and Top public university. Even if they choose a PWI we are confident they can find colleges that are a good fit where they get accepted.

White people want to believe they are about to take something away from black people and will emerge the victor. It’s not going to work out that way but as I said carry. Sally is still not getting into Harvard.

So by your argument, AA is not needed. Should be no issues in removing it then. Win/win.

For people like you and your white kids it’s not needed. You don’t care about diversity which is your choice. The reason these threads keep popping up is you think you are going to get something that you aren’t. Black people know what’s up.

[Anonymous]

One school’s take.
https://thesandb.com/41276/article/office-of-admissions-braces-for-impact-of-predicted-end-of-affirmative-action/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will vary. Some schools will be happy to just enroll the best students and other will drop aa in favor of economic diversity

You make it sound like wanting diversity is at odds with enrolling the best students. I find these assumptions to be suspect. Like the posters who define merit as whatever benefits them the most.

The way diversity is defined and implemented today, yes, it is absolutely at odds at enrolling the best students. There is such a huge skills gap between the average URM and non URM applicant, that there is a serious shortage of equivalently qualified URM applicants in the application pipeline. If a college insists on getting anything close to proportional representation despite this, then by definition they have to pick lower qualified URM students to fill their class. The only way to claim that diversity does not affect quality today, is to redefine the very meaning of the word merit to something nonsensical, like Harvard did by introducing spurious variables like the personality ratings into the mix.

Also in every country where diversity is actually present, it has led to destruction of social cohesion, social trust and increase in friction. The former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Myanmar being some examples) Diversity advocate have only recently recognized this because now they are insisting on "inclusion" as being another responsibility of the non URM pool. This is just code for non URM's having to walk on eggshells, so as not to trigger or piss off URM's on campus. It's a fool's errand. Human kind is tribal by nature and just like diversity brought strife all over the world, it is destroying America's campus environment today.

So what is your solution? Whine endlessly about it? Or have no diversity and every racial group sticks to themselves? It’s too late for that. This country is diverse and we’d better continue to figure out ways to get along and include everyone because diversity isn’t going anywhere.

The solution is pretty simple.

1) Stop lying to the American people and acknowledge that the big skill gap is not due to systemic racism, but lack of cultural capital in the URM community, most of which is directly under their control.
2) Expect better from URM communities instead of molly coddling them. Delayed gratification, better work ethic, stronger focus on academics, stronger families, less out of wedlock child births for a start. None of this needs any change in attitude from non URM's
3) Intervene in elementary school to create a bigger pool of eligible candidates
3) Forget recruiting for Diversity. Recruit for the same standards
That's hard work, instead of yelling "systemic racism" whereever you see racial disparity, which is the lazy way out