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:

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.

You don't see big anomally from the data?
Essay? LOL

[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: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.

DP.. and the committee's opinion of "personality" is very subjective. How do we know they aren't being subconsciously racist? They see an Asian name and automatically think, "Robot, no personality", then read the essay, even if it's no worse than a white or brown kid's, and score them lower on "personality".

Unconscious bias can also impact non URM kids.

I think the data has shown that Asian American students have to go above and beyond to prove themselves, much like Jews and African Americans had to do a long time ago. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

[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:

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.

"Not qualified or capable" based on what? Who is defining the criteria for these schools? Big government?

What if their criteria is "different life experience/perspective"?

Not qualified based on test scores and GPA, which have a vast history of correlation with having the capability to succeed in college.

"different life experience/perspective" does not correlate at all with capability to do college-level work.

Nobody is being admitted with test scores/GPA that correlate with not being able to do the work at elite college (and UNC).

+1

The whole "not qualified" argument is a strawman.

[Anonymous]

The schools will lose this case. Let this thread die.

[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: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.

"Not qualified or capable" based on what? Who is defining the criteria for these schools? Big government?

What if their criteria is "different life experience/perspective"?

Not qualified based on test scores and GPA, which have a vast history of correlation with having the capability to succeed in college.

"different life experience/perspective" does not correlate at all with capability to do college-level work.

It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

[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: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?

They're looking for future leaders who will bring them fame and glory and tons of money, and they believe they've found another tool to help them in figuring this out. Any measurement is going to have some groups that end up on top, and others that don't. Asians having the lowest scores does not indicate that they're being deliberately excluded. I'll bet if you broke it down by extracurricular activity instead of race, you'd find that athletes score higher than any other group and that those with no ECs would score lowest. That would not mean that those with no ECs were being discriminated against.

Sure, a school saying that Asian American applicant have bad personalities is in no way racist. Especially coming from an institution with a history of discriminating against those who they did not want attending in large numbers despite being qualified. This is totally different than Jewish applicants and Catholic before them and we should totally give Harvard the benefit of the doubt now

so to be clear when looking at this chart. all other races are not rated a 1/2 as much as white applicants- and Ill emphasis that all other races are rated about the same personal score 1-4- and you think this is just specific to Asians? https://github.com/tyleransom/SFFAvHarvard-Docs/blob/master/TrialExhibits/P621.pdf

[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: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?

They're looking for future leaders who will bring them fame and glory and tons of money, and they believe they've found another tool to help them in figuring this out. Any measurement is going to have some groups that end up on top, and others that don't. Asians having the lowest scores does not indicate that they're being deliberately excluded. I'll bet if you broke it down by extracurricular activity instead of race, you'd find that athletes score higher than any other group and that those with no ECs would score lowest. That would not mean that those with no ECs were being discriminated against.

The top of the class does “best”, then it’s the athletes/artists/activists, then it’s the smart kids who were top of their class /SATs but standing next to the top 10% didn’t measure up (but are still amazing) … but they seem to not soar after graduation.

You may have misunderstood. I was referring to the personality tests when I suggested that you could break it down by activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The schools will lose this case. Let this thread die.

Yes, one step toward progress.

We need to move on to SLDC

[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: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.

You don't see big anomally from the data?
Essay? LOL

You are just comparing whites to asians. You arent looking at all other races compared to whites and/or other minorities compared to minorities. SEE THE WHOLE CHART not just Asians vs Whites. Asians are not being more discriminated against compared to any other race/ethnicity. You just arent white.

[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: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?

They're looking for future leaders who will bring them fame and glory and tons of money, and they believe they've found another tool to help them in figuring this out. Any measurement is going to have some groups that end up on top, and others that don't. Asians having the lowest scores does not indicate that they're being deliberately excluded. I'll bet if you broke it down by extracurricular activity instead of race, you'd find that athletes score higher than any other group and that those with no ECs would score lowest. That would not mean that those with no ECs were being discriminated against.

Sure, a school saying that Asian American applicant have bad personalities is in no way racist. Especially coming from an institution with a history of discriminating against those who they did not want attending in large numbers despite being qualified. This is totally different than Jewish applicants and Catholic before them and we should totally give Harvard the benefit of the doubt now

No need to give the benefit of the doubt. They're testifying in front of SCOTUS.

[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: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.

One race scored demonstrably lower on the over all score based on personality and you answer is essays? So you think Asian American applicants wrote essays that where boring? OK racist.

Nope. You asked for an explanation. Essays and their rating are not objective. Maybe they are too well-written. Maybe their struggles and obstacles arent identifiable. Maybe they dont have self-directed activities. OR MAYBE JUST MAYBE, there are some students who write better essays or have better topics etc or struggles that they have overcome that rates them higher. I would also direct you to the other points. Other people that have met them dont seem to rate them higher than the white counterparts either. I would also note that the chart only compares WHITE TO ASIAN. Not to any other race. Interesting.....

This is the most subjective part of the application. And you think it's just a coincidence that the racist tropes of Asians not having personality, of lacking leadership skills, etc., etc., were reflected by the aggregate scores of thousands of Asian and Asian American applicants?

[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:

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.

"Not qualified or capable" based on what? Who is defining the criteria for these schools? Big government?

What if their criteria is "different life experience/perspective"?

Not qualified based on test scores and GPA, which have a vast history of correlation with having the capability to succeed in college.

"different life experience/perspective" does not correlate at all with capability to do college-level work.

Nobody is being admitted with test scores/GPA that correlate with not being able to do the work at elite college (and UNC).

+1

The whole "not qualified" argument is a strawman.

+2

[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:

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.

One race scored demonstrably lower on the over all score based on personality and you answer is essays? So you think Asian American applicants wrote essays that where boring? OK racist.

Nope. You asked for an explanation. Essays and their rating are not objective. Maybe they are too well-written. Maybe their struggles and obstacles arent identifiable. Maybe they dont have self-directed activities. OR MAYBE JUST MAYBE, there are some students who write better essays or have better topics etc or struggles that they have overcome that rates them higher. I would also direct you to the other points. Other people that have met them dont seem to rate them higher than the white counterparts either. I would also note that the chart only compares WHITE TO ASIAN. Not to any other race. Interesting.....

This is the most subjective part of the application. And you think it's just a coincidence that the racist tropes of Asians not having personality, of lacking leadership skills, etc., etc., were reflected by the aggregate scores of thousands of Asian and Asian American applicants?

You are conveniently only looking at white vs asian data.

[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:

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.

One race scored demonstrably lower on the over all score based on personality and you answer is essays? So you think Asian American applicants wrote essays that where boring? OK racist.

Nope. You asked for an explanation. Essays and their rating are not objective. Maybe they are too well-written. Maybe their struggles and obstacles arent identifiable. Maybe they dont have self-directed activities. OR MAYBE JUST MAYBE, there are some students who write better essays or have better topics etc or struggles that they have overcome that rates them higher. I would also direct you to the other points. Other people that have met them dont seem to rate them higher than the white counterparts either. I would also note that the chart only compares WHITE TO ASIAN. Not to any other race. Interesting.....

This is the most subjective part of the application. And you think it's just a coincidence that the racist tropes of Asians not having personality, of lacking leadership skills, etc., etc., were reflected by the aggregate scores of thousands of Asian and Asian American applicants?

You are conveniently only looking at white vs asian data.

and there's strong indication of discrimation against Asian

[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:

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.

One race scored demonstrably lower on the over all score based on personality and you answer is essays? So you think Asian American applicants wrote essays that where boring? OK racist.

Nope. You asked for an explanation. Essays and their rating are not objective. Maybe they are too well-written. Maybe their struggles and obstacles arent identifiable. Maybe they dont have self-directed activities. OR MAYBE JUST MAYBE, there are some students who write better essays or have better topics etc or struggles that they have overcome that rates them higher. I would also direct you to the other points. Other people that have met them dont seem to rate them higher than the white counterparts either. I would also note that the chart only compares WHITE TO ASIAN. Not to any other race. Interesting.....

This is the most subjective part of the application. And you think it's just a coincidence that the racist tropes of Asians not having personality, of lacking leadership skills, etc., etc., were reflected by the aggregate scores of thousands of Asian and Asian American applicants?

You are conveniently only looking at white vs asian data.

Asians were ranked the lowest of all the racial categories - this came out during the arguments yesterday.