NYTimes article on diversity in admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

A lot of white males.

Yes! Conservative, white males are their target demographic.

A lot of jewish and asian males who think they are white

Jewish people are white you dumb#$$

Interesting. Good book to read: https://www.amazon.com/Became-White-Folks-About-America/dp/081352590X

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scenario 4 is expanding the applicant pool.

Eukreka!

Scenario 4 is that colleges embark on an expensive and untested quest to recruit lower income overnight.

Scenario 4 is basically "and then monkeys might fly out of my butt."

By the NYT's own numbers in the other three, more realistic scenarios, URM enrollment is going to be down 30% or more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

A lot of white males.

Yes! Conservative, white males are their target demographic.

A lot of jewish and asian males who think they are white

Jewish people are white you dumb#$$

Total side point, but not all Jewish people are white. In America, most Jews tend to be white, but there are Jewish communities outside of America that are not white.

[Anonymous]

If the universities who are wealthy enough to play these games instead funneled their resources into supporting under resourced schools in their own communities, it would help a lot more lives. They could start by voluntarily contributing money to local schools, since they don't typically play property taxes, which is how local schools are funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can easily identify high scoring URMs via the College Board Recognition Program, the National African American, Hispanic, and Indigenous Program awards. This requires taking the PSAT or multiple AP exams.

Which requires going to a school that offers multiple AP classes. Tell me, how many AP classes do most DCPS high schools, other than JR, Walls, and Banneker, offer?

NP. The College Board Recognition Program requires two, which is available at every DCPS high school.

DP: to clarify: must score 3+ on at least 2 exams by the end of 10th grade.

Most kids do not take AP classes until 11th grade. Also, most kids, especially low income kids to not pass AP exams in 9th/10th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird obsession over race. I get that the white male is the enemy of mankind, but it is getting convulted trying to game college admissions to achieve a predetermined outcome.

Nice try - but let’s not pretend there’s not a huge “race” problem they are trying to correct to help the underprivileged succeed. I applaud the top Universities for being United in these efforts.

No one cares about underdogs that can’t keep up.

[Anonymous]

I think it's telling that most of this thread is about side issues like "are Jews white?", "what are the demographics of the NYT comments section?", etc.

No one wants to discuss the fact that there are going to be a lot fewer URMs on T80 college campuses next fall. Neither supporters of AA nor opponents of it seem interested in this fact.

Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird obsession over race. I get that the white male is the enemy of mankind, but it is getting convulted trying to game college admissions to achieve a predetermined outcome.

Nice try - but let’s not pretend there’s not a huge “race” problem they are trying to correct to help the underprivileged succeed. I applaud the top Universities for being United in these efforts.

No one cares about underdogs that can’t keep up.

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t FGLI preference do this to a good extent??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

On what? Summarize the article so we can all read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

No. Unless your consider 42 old. Their demos are enviable.

I’m always shocked when a link is posted here and someone says “paywall”. Who doesn’t subscribe to the NYT? I’m not always a fan, but can’t imagine not having access to the NYT.

https://gitnux.org/new-york-times-readership-statistics/

Do you work for the NYT?

I ask only because I know very few people who DO subscribe. I'm 33.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

No. Unless your consider 42 old. Their demos are enviable.

I’m always shocked when a link is posted here and someone says “paywall”. Who doesn’t subscribe to the NYT? I’m not always a fan, but can’t imagine not having access to the NYT.

https://gitnux.org/new-york-times-readership-statistics/

Do you work for the NYT?

I ask only because I know very few people who DO subscribe. I'm 33.

Everyone I know subscribes. Age group 35-50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

+1
I think that goes for the vast majority of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One wonders why colleges didn’t do some of this stuff already, which would have still given them racial diversity AND vastly better economic diversity.

Because racial diversity is more important, and directly targeting race is more effective for racial diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One wonders why colleges didn’t do some of this stuff already, which would have still given them racial diversity AND vastly better economic diversity.

Because racial diversity is more important, and directly targeting race is more effective for racial diversity.

FGLI is specific and takes care of most of the issues.