Trump DOJ to prosecute universities for anti-white affirmative action policies

[Anonymous]

If universities based admissions on just grades and test scores both Johnny and Jamal would lose out to Jing. Current policies actually favor both Johnny and Jamal. But Johnny's parents are too dense to realize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If universities based admissions on just grades and test scores both Johnny and Jamal would lose out to Jing. Current policies actually favor both Johnny and Jamal. But Johnny's parents are too dense to realize it.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

I agree although more whites will be denied admission in the Cal Tech model than there is now.

Good .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should a black student who has a 3.3 gpa, 1200 sat and who comes from an upper middle class background and has good extracurriculars get into better schools than a white middle class student with a 3.6 gpa, 1300 sat and good extracurriculars? This is reality to many Affirmative action should be on family income not race.

Not that I think for a minute that 3.6 students are losing spots to 3.3 students. But the reality today is that black student will get 50% of the job interviews compared to a white student with the exact same resume, just a different name.

I worked in higher-ed admissions, and I will tell you that white 3.6 students did lose spots to black 3.3 students, with all other factors equal.

That's good way to turn our nation into Haiti or Botswana.

Racist.

[Anonymous]

So many real problems are going investigated/prosecuted for this silly "nothingburger." Waste of time, energy, and money!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If universities based admissions on just grades and test scores both Johnny and Jamal would lose out to Jing. Current policies actually favor both Johnny and Jamal. But Johnny's parents are too dense to realize it.

True.

+1. And unless Johnny is related to Jared, he's not getting into Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If universities based admissions on just grades and test scores both Johnny and Jamal would lose out to Jing. Current policies actually favor both Johnny and Jamal. But Johnny's parents are too dense to realize it.

Maybe Johnny's parents aren't as dense as you think. Maybe they're just not big fans of perpetuating systematic race-based discrimination.

Crazy, I know!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't SCOTUS already decided on the constitutionality of affirmative action? So glad taxpayer funds will be going to what's *really* important.

Yes screw little Johnny who got s 1600 SAT. he needs to give up his seat to Harvard because racism, right?

I'm sure every Johnny who experienced discrimination is already suing. He doesn't need Justice to help him out.

When you choose onion rings over French Fries you discriminated. Doesn't make it wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't SCOTUS already decided on the constitutionality of affirmative action? So glad taxpayer funds will be going to what's *really* important.

Yes screw little Johnny who got s 1600 SAT. he needs to give up his seat to Harvard because racism, right?

To little Jamal who also got a 1600? Maybe.

But you know that government can't tell Harvard who to admit, I hope.

That would be one thing but universities are giving preference to Jamal with a 1300 over mr white 1600.

Maybe Jamal with 1300 has a much more interesting back story to his life, has done a lot more admirable things, is a much better writer, a more talented inventor, won more awards, is a kinder person than Johnny who took 5 prep courses to get his perfect score but has never been out of his little cocoon of privilege and who obviously had help writing his essay.

I know which candidate I'd prefer.

DP. But you're just making up a sympathetic story. Johnny could be the one with the "interesting back story," not Jamal. AA isn't based on who possesses a certain back story; it's based on who possesses a certain skin color.

So, are you on an admissions committee and are telling us a particular story about particular candidates?

Admissions committees don't just look at skin color. They look at the whole package. And yes, non-academic factors come into play. I'm a white person who got into an Ivy League school with that 1300 SAT score and you know what I am almost certain put me over in the yes pile? The fact that I was from a poor rural midwestern area from where they rarely received applications. An admissions officer as much told me so. I probably prevented a Connecticut Johnny with his 1600 SAT score from getting in.

But he probably got in elsewhere so i don't feel so bad about it.

I don't think anyone remotely suggested that Admissions committees ONLY look at skin color.

Yet this is what most people think. All AA says is that race and gender could be used as factors. It does not say its the deciding factor. And in practice, its not applied that way.

Antri-AAs like to to use the SAT or some other standardized test as the primary driver or baseline as to how a student should be admitted. The thinking here is that, since AA and Latinos statistically do worse on these tests than Asians and whites, they are more than likely less deserving of admittance. In their perfect black-and-white world, only the kids with the highest standardized test scores would get into the best schools or have the highest preference. In practice, GPA and STs ARE typically the primary drivers, however, and colleges and universities typically work to seek diversity in its student body, so other factors are also considered.

The big problem here is, for all people who complain about the concept of even considering race, you do not hear those same people complaining about other, more significant admittance factors that have nothing to do with merit, like wealthy, status and legacy. Its also hard to explain how to view whites who get admitted with lesser stats compared to other students b/c of some other experiences or factors they have. This is WAY more prevalent than your "AA takes White/Asian student's slot" straw man that racist DCUMers use. Particularly in elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't SCOTUS already decided on the constitutionality of affirmative action? So glad taxpayer funds will be going to what's *really* important.

Yes screw little Johnny who got s 1600 SAT. he needs to give up his seat to Harvard because racism, right?

To little Jamal who also got a 1600? Maybe.

But you know that government can't tell Harvard who to admit, I hope.

That would be one thing but universities are giving preference to Jamal with a 1300 over mr white 1600.

Maybe Jamal with 1300 has a much more interesting back story to his life, has done a lot more admirable things, is a much better writer, a more talented inventor, won more awards, is a kinder person than Johnny who took 5 prep courses to get his perfect score but has never been out of his little cocoon of privilege and who obviously had help writing his essay.

I know which candidate I'd prefer.

DP. But you're just making up a sympathetic story. Johnny could be the one with the "interesting back story," not Jamal. AA isn't based on who possesses a certain back story; it's based on who possesses a certain skin color.

So, are you on an admissions committee and are telling us a particular story about particular candidates?

Admissions committees don't just look at skin color. They look at the whole package. And yes, non-academic factors come into play. I'm a white person who got into an Ivy League school with that 1300 SAT score and you know what I am almost certain put me over in the yes pile? The fact that I was from a poor rural midwestern area from where they rarely received applications. An admissions officer as much told me so. I probably prevented a Connecticut Johnny with his 1600 SAT score from getting in.

But he probably got in elsewhere so i don't feel so bad about it.

I don't think anyone remotely suggested that Admissions committees ONLY look at skin color.

Yet this is what most people think. All AA says is that race and gender could be used as factors. It does not say its the deciding factor. And in practice, its not applied that way.

Antri-AAs like to to use the SAT or some other standardized test as the primary driver or baseline as to how a student should be admitted. The thinking here is that, since AA and Latinos statistically do worse on these tests than Asians and whites, they are more than likely less deserving of admittance. In their perfect black-and-white world, only the kids with the highest standardized test scores would get into the best schools or have the highest preference. In practice, GPA and STs ARE typically the primary drivers, however, and colleges and universities typically work to seek diversity in its student body, so other factors are also considered.

The big problem here is, for all people who complain about the concept of even considering race, you do not hear those same people complaining about other, more significant admittance factors that have nothing to do with merit, like wealthy, status and legacy. Its also hard to explain how to view whites who get admitted with lesser stats compared to other students b/c of some other experiences or factors they have. This is WAY more prevalent than your "AA takes White/Asian student's slot" straw man that racist DCUMers use. Particularly in elite schools.

Because we live in a free country where you are free to consider any factor not prohibited by law. So it's perfectly illegal to give preference to the rich. That's how every business works actually. It's not ok to give preference based on race.

[Anonymous]

Perfectly *legal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

So, all those people who were mad that they were called deplorables, are actually deplorable racists. Who knew?

Why are you assuming that the people pointing out that whites lose out to minorities (with lower grades and test scores) are Trump voters? I didn't vote for Trump, and I think it unfair that a white, Asian, or Jewish student from the same SES as blacks and Latinos lose their spots to those with significantly lower grades, based on race.

Jews like kushner? Do you really want to examine how he got into school?

...I said from the same SES group. Kushner isn't part of that. I'm talking about a Jewish student with a 3.6 and a black student with a 3.3, both from similar middle-class backgrounds. The Jewish kid will in all likelihood lose his spot to the black kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

So, all those people who were mad that they were called deplorables, are actually deplorable racists. Who knew?

Why are you assuming that the people pointing out that whites lose out to minorities (with lower grades and test scores) are Trump voters? I didn't vote for Trump, and I think it unfair that a white, Asian, or Jewish student from the same SES as blacks and Latinos lose their spots to those with significantly lower grades, based on race.

Jews like kushner? Do you really want to examine how he got into school?

...I said from the same SES group. Kushner isn't part of that. I'm talking about a Jewish student with a 3.6 and a black student with a 3.3, both from similar middle-class backgrounds. The Jewish kid will in all likelihood lose his spot to the black kid.

The kid with a 3.6 is not competing with anybody with a 3.3. Sorry but a 3.3 is barely a B. A 3.6 is more A's than B's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

So, all those people who were mad that they were called deplorables, are actually deplorable racists. Who knew?

Why are you assuming that the people pointing out that whites lose out to minorities (with lower grades and test scores) are Trump voters? I didn't vote for Trump, and I think it unfair that a white, Asian, or Jewish student from the same SES as blacks and Latinos lose their spots to those with significantly lower grades, based on race.

Jews like kushner? Do you really want to examine how he got into school?

...I said from the same SES group. Kushner isn't part of that. I'm talking about a Jewish student with a 3.6 and a black student with a 3.3, both from similar middle-class backgrounds. The Jewish kid will in all likelihood lose his spot to the black kid.

The kid with a 3.6 is not competing with anybody with a 3.3. Sorry but a 3.3 is barely a B. A 3.6 is more A's than B's.

Huh? If the black kid with a 3.3 got in, and the white kid with a 3.6 did not (and both were from middle class families), of course they competed. What....you think the 3.6 kid would say, "I lost my slot to a 3.3 kid, but he wasn't my competition?"

Amazing how many people try to justify racial preferences,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Because we live in a free country where you are free to consider any factor not prohibited by law. So it's perfectly illegal to give preference to the rich. That's how every business works actually. It's not ok to give preference based on race.

Except SCOTUS disagrees with you. So you can pretend that this is a simple open-and-shut argument, but you won't fool anyone who isn't a complete idiot with your dismissive "logic".