SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

The whole premise of the argument is that Asian kids are being rejected from Harvard for being Asian because lesser qualified kids are being accepted who aren’t Asian. But statistically Asians are over represented, as pointed out a couple of pages back. Are you even listening?!

Overrepresentation is a racist theory/term used by racist liberals and is unconstitutional.

Racist liberals… you’ve definitely formed a relationship with racist conservatives. Data is racist? Data is objective.

You liberal cried foul for the IQ distribution data showing blacks with the lowest average. So was that data objective or racist?

m


Omg can you measure IQ?! Have you taken an IQ test? If you have, you would know there are questions that are culturally biased.

such as?
You know IQ tests don't have to verbal?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

The whole premise of the argument is that Asian kids are being rejected from Harvard for being Asian because lesser qualified kids are being accepted who aren’t Asian. But statistically Asians are over represented, as pointed out a couple of pages back. Are you even listening?!

Overrepresentation is a racist theory/term used by racist liberals and is unconstitutional.

Racist liberals… you’ve definitely formed a relationship with racist conservatives. Data is racist? Data is objective.

You liberal cried foul for the IQ distribution data showing blacks with the lowest average. So was that data objective or racist?

m


Omg can you measure IQ?! Have you taken an IQ test? If you have, you would know there are questions that are culturally biased.

such as?
You know IQ tests don't have to verbal?

What? Don’t have to verbal?! Try constructing a better sentence.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

The whole premise of the argument is that Asian kids are being rejected from Harvard for being Asian because lesser qualified kids are being accepted who aren’t Asian. But statistically Asians are over represented, as pointed out a couple of pages back. Are you even listening?!

Overrepresentation is a racist theory/term used by racist liberals and is unconstitutional.

Racist liberals… you’ve definitely formed a relationship with racist conservatives. Data is racist? Data is objective.

You liberal cried foul for the IQ distribution data showing blacks with the lowest average. So was that data objective or racist?

m


Omg can you measure IQ?! Have you taken an IQ test? If you have, you would know there are questions that are culturally biased.

such as?
You know IQ tests don't have to verbal?

What? Don’t have to verbal?! Try constructing a better sentence.

*don't have to be...
I know you're an idiot, but I thought you were at least a little smarter than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hats off to the Supreme Court. The whole race game of college admissions is nauseating.

Looking forward to focus on grades and test scores.


Ps - let’s also ban legacies.

And where will those scholarships and building funds come from if schools get rid of legacies. Nope, not going to happen and legacy is not a protective class. The Kushners will always be able to buy their way into certain schools.

[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:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

The whole premise of the argument is that Asian kids are being rejected from Harvard for being Asian because lesser qualified kids are being accepted who aren’t Asian. But statistically Asians are over represented, as pointed out a couple of pages back. Are you even listening?!

Overrepresentation is a racist theory/term used by racist liberals and is unconstitutional.

Racist liberals… you’ve definitely formed a relationship with racist conservatives. Data is racist? Data is objective.

Dp are you drunk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no way Harvard was going to let the university be majority Asian so they made up random barriers like extracurricular activities to block more Asians from being accepted. Having good grades wasn’t enough.

Instead of admitting that Ivy Leagues simply do not want more Asians (for whatever reason). Some Asians started blaming black and latino people for “taking their spot”.

Does anyone know the history on this? My assumption was the holistic approach gained momentum when schools tried to keep our strong Jewish kids and it just continued in that way, molded to whatever purpose was needed at a given time, at a given school (but also in very racist ways, as with Jewish kids or Asian).

Having good grades has never been enough. That is what the people litigating this action never seem to understand. It is the role of the admissions offices to put together a class of talented individuals across different disciplines, interests, perspectives and personalities. They also need people to fill out music, theater, athletics, research and other pursuits. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of kids who can manage the work who apply but only a handful gain admission. But the idea that the admissions should be based solely on scores and grades in a vacuum is ignorant, lazy and misguided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Many conservative colleges refuse to take federal funding in order to maintain independence. I wonder if some elite liberal colleges will follow suit.

m
Not many, just one college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no way Harvard was going to let the university be majority Asian so they made up random barriers like extracurricular activities to block more Asians from being accepted. Having good grades wasn’t enough.

Instead of admitting that Ivy Leagues simply do not want more Asians (for whatever reason). Some Asians started blaming black and latino people for “taking their spot”.

Having good grades has never been enough. That is what the people litigating this action never seem to understand. It is the role of the admissions offices to put together a class of talented individuals across different disciplines, interests, perspectives and personalities. They also need people to fill out music, theater, athletics, research and other pursuits. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of kids who can manage the work who apply but only a handful gain admission. But the idea that the admissions should be based solely on scores and grades in a vacuum is ignorant, lazy and misguided.

Does anyone know the history on this? My assumption was the holistic approach gained momentum when schools tried to keep our strong Jewish kids and it just continued in that way, molded to whatever purpose was needed at a given time, at a given school (but also in very racist ways, as with Jewish kids or Asian).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no way Harvard was going to let the university be majority Asian so they made up random barriers like extracurricular activities to block more Asians from being accepted. Having good grades wasn’t enough.

Instead of admitting that Ivy Leagues simply do not want more Asians (for whatever reason). Some Asians started blaming black and latino people for “taking their spot”.

Having good grades has never been enough. That is what the people litigating this action never seem to understand. It is the role of the admissions offices to put together a class of talented individuals across different disciplines, interests, perspectives and personalities. They also need people to fill out music, theater, athletics, research and other pursuits. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of kids who can manage the work who apply but only a handful gain admission. But the idea that the admissions should be based solely on scores and grades in a vacuum is ignorant, lazy and misguided.

Does anyone know the history on this? My assumption was the holistic approach gained momentum when schools tried to keep our strong Jewish kids and it just continued in that way, molded to whatever purpose was needed at a given time, at a given school (but also in very racist ways, as with Jewish kids or Asian).

Do you know the history of this country? Also try google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Harvard_University#

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yup, Legacy should be banned if they accept public money. Doubt we will get any politician to vote for it. That would be like them voting to make insider trader illegal for themselves.

If legacy are banned, then we won't have truly elite colleges with exclusive networks of connected people.

It is just about time to disassemble all Ivies.

Hahaha. Yeah right. The entire scotus and a large percentage of Congress is ivy educated.

[Anonymous]

This thread is ugly as hell.

I agree that people shouldn't be racially discriminated against in college admissions and think scotus made the right call. And unfortunately that will have some negative effects on black students. Two things can be true at once. Hopefully we can find a path forward that gives black students a better launch so that race-blind admissions can also be fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm conflicted.

I'm white from an immigrant family, and when I went to college (early 2000s) I was rejected to some colleges that accepted minority classmates who had lower GPAs, lower SAT score, and came from much better-off families than mine. At the time, as a kid who worked all through high school and grew up on food stamps hustling every minute to make my life better, it hurt. 20 years later I'm okay with what happened because my disadvantages still pale in comparison to the inherent privilege society gives me because of my race.

Now I put myself into an Asian kid's shoes. A kid who works his butt off to have a perfect pre-college portfolio but then finds out, sorry, you're Asian and we need to admit more blacks/hispanics. How is that fair? Asians face racism and bigotry every day. Should an Asian kid who does everything "right" be held back because of his or her race? How is that not outright racism? To me, it is.

FWIW, I think a far better way to diversity campuses is based on socioeconomic status, which has a natural overlap with minority populations, but still helps give a leg up to the people who need it most. All things constant, I'm not sure the Obama girls should get the same race-based preference as a kid from Southeast.

. The Obama girls received the legacy, elite parents, and full-pay preference. The race preference wasnt considered when they were a shoo-in for the first two preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read The NY Times today.
College admissions just got murkier rather than more transparent for everyone.
College admissions across the US are now committed more than ever to maintaining diversity. More weight will be given to subjective standards and less to objective ones such as grades and test scores. Whichever side you are on, this is not a good outcome

Oh stop it with the fear mongering. Can their standards get more subjective than making up an admission criteria for the purpose of rejecting a group of students?

Yes, and now test optional might officially become test blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no way Harvard was going to let the university be majority Asian so they made up random barriers like extracurricular activities to block more Asians from being accepted. Having good grades wasn’t enough.

Instead of admitting that Ivy Leagues simply do not want more Asians (for whatever reason). Some Asians started blaming black and latino people for “taking their spot”.

Having good grades has never been enough. That is what the people litigating this action never seem to understand. It is the role of the admissions offices to put together a class of talented individuals across different disciplines, interests, perspectives and personalities. They also need people to fill out music, theater, athletics, research and other pursuits. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of kids who can manage the work who apply but only a handful gain admission. But the idea that the admissions should be based solely on scores and grades in a vacuum is ignorant, lazy and misguided.

Does anyone know the history on this? My assumption was the holistic approach gained momentum when schools tried to keep our strong Jewish kids and it just continued in that way, molded to whatever purpose was needed at a given time, at a given school (but also in very racist ways, as with Jewish kids or Asian).

Do you know the history of this country? Also try google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Harvard_University#

You really didn’t answer the question.

[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:

Why don't you look to see who is leading top US tech firms like NVIDIA, AMD, Microsoft, and Adobe?

I told you how they took over the tech in the US. Once one Indian has a foot in the door, they will bring onboard their friends and cousins and then they only hire Indians, then they promote each other to top positions.

This is how it happened in Silicon Valley. Ask anyone who works there. They know.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't act like white people don't do this. Have you ever heard of the good old boys club? Look at most government contracting companies in the DMV and tell me the white male holding a C-level position didn't bring in their friends for other C-level or leadership positions. I.see.it.all.the.time.

You see, the truth is they don't see it when it's white people doing this. But if a racial group they don't belong to suddenly does it, OMG the world is ending! Though in all seriousness, no one should be doing this.

White people’s nepotism and cronyism is why we need civil rights laws and affirmative action goals in the first place. Universities are more meritorious than any other institutions in the country, because they take the time and effort to assess each individual applicant. Unlike the Supreme Court, which makes decisions according to “who is for, who is against, and which side funds me.”

Great, then do it in a way that doesn't discriminate against Asians like Harvard was doing. You want to do it by income? Go for it. But what Harvard was doing is unacceptable.

I still don't understand...Asians were not under-represented as compared to the general population at Harvard, so how are "they" being discriminated against? If Asians make up 12% of the population and have roughly 12% of the seats, then what is the complaint? I mean, Harvard turns away 98% of their applicants, and it is possible that the number of Asian rejections is higher because there may be more Asian applicants, but I still feel like this was not the right decision.

The Asian community won’t be happy until 100% of Asians who apply are accepted into Harvard. They feel they deserve it when other kids do not. They are arguing that their kids are always superior to others. Anyone else admitted who isn’t Asian is not as bright and only there due to AA or legacy. It’s been well explain on this thread.

Are you even listening to yourself and not embarrassed by what you're saying? The Asian community is NOT a monolith. I repeat. We are not all tiger moms and we're not all rich nor are we all great in math. My kids don't have straight As. They play sports, not chess. We wouldn't even think of applying to Harvard. We'd be happy if they get into UMCP. What the hell is wrong with you? What we don't want however, is for people to discriminate against my kids and make it more difficult for them to get into schools more than non-Asian kids because of some stereotype or racial bias that you hold against us. Got it? Is that too much to ask?

The whole premise of the argument is that Asian kids are being rejected from Harvard for being Asian because lesser qualified kids are being accepted who aren’t Asian. But statistically Asians are over represented, as pointed out a couple of pages back. Are you even listening?!

DP
It seems that "statistically," Asians achieve at a higher rate than others. Does this mean that they can be discriminated against?

No but why do you think the other kids accepted aren’t worthy and those spots should go to only Asian kids? I don’t think any race has cornered the market on exceptionalism. Seems Asians do though.

If you look at their achievements individually and also their highly developed civilizations and cultures in Cjina, Japan, Korea, etc, they have a right to be proud.

South Korea and Japan can thank the USA for heavily investing funding and intellectual assistance after those countries devastation at the end of WW2 and Korean wars. China can thank Nixon and Kissinger for opening up trade channels that lifted that country out of a feudal economy. Highly developed indeed only because of USA help. Otherwise those countries would be on the level of North Korea and Cambodia.