Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

Wow Asians even got good points on 'Activities and Leadership'

It's jus this bullcrap 'likeability, kindness, courage' rating from the people didn't even talk to the studetns.

Totall Bullcrap LOL

[Anonymous]

Hopefully racist Harvard loses and has to pay out $30B in damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow Asians even got good points on 'Activities and Leadership'

It's jus this bullcrap 'likeability, kindness, courage' rating from the people didn't even talk to the studetns.

Totall Bullcrap LOL

Interviewers also rated them on that.

[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:

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.

Oh that was verified by a statistician or the plantiff?

[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:

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

did you look at the document linked that shows whites vs asians vs african americans vs hispanics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Asians even got good points on 'Activities and Leadership'

It's jus this bullcrap 'likeability, kindness, courage' rating from the people didn't even talk to the studetns.

Totall Bullcrap LOL

Interviewers also rated them on that.

Yes they are the ones actually talked to students and the rating from the interviewers is better than Whites.

But then suddenly drops big by the admission committee on same category who didn't even talk to the kids.

More of total Bullcrap.

Imagine this heppened other races, whould they just suck it up?

[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:

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.

Oh that was verified by a statistician or the plantiff?

I believe that was cited by one of the justices, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Asians even got good points on 'Activities and Leadership'

It's jus this bullcrap 'likeability, kindness, courage' rating from the people didn't even talk to the studetns.

Totall Bullcrap LOL

Interviewers also rated them on that.

Yes they are the ones actually talked to students and the rating from the interviewers is better than Whites.

But then suddenly drops big by the admission committee on same category who didn't even talk to the kids.

More of total Bullcrap.

Imagine this heppened other races, whould they just suck it up?

It's not racist because we have to trust Harvard. They just apologized to Jewish applicants from decades ago (apologized, not compensated), but it's totally different now. Just because they once did everything possible to exclude a group that they thought would be too numerous on campus, doesen't mean that they would do it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Asians even got good points on 'Activities and Leadership'

It's jus this bullcrap 'likeability, kindness, courage' rating from the people didn't even talk to the studetns.

Totall Bullcrap LOL

Interviewers also rated them on that.

Yes they are the ones actually talked to students and the rating from the interviewers is better than Whites.

But then suddenly drops big by the admission committee on same category who didn't even talk to the kids.

More of total Bullcrap.

Imagine this heppened other races, whould they just suck it up?

It's not racist because we have to trust Harvard. They just apologized to Jewish applicants from decades ago (apologized, not compensated), but it's totally different now. Just because they once did everything possible to exclude a group that they thought would be too numerous on campus, doesen't mean that they would do it again.

right? An enlightened institution would never use a racist policy to limit the numbers of a race that they felt were being over represented. That would never happen today, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Asians even got good points on 'Activities and Leadership'

It's jus this bullcrap 'likeability, kindness, courage' rating from the people didn't even talk to the studetns.

Totall Bullcrap LOL

Interviewers also rated them on that.

Yes they are the ones actually talked to students and the rating from the interviewers is better than Whites.

But then suddenly drops big by the admission committee on same category who didn't even talk to the kids.

More of total Bullcrap.

Imagine this heppened other races, whould they just suck it up?

It's not racist because we have to trust Harvard. They just apologized to Jewish applicants from decades ago (apologized, not compensated), but it's totally different now. Just because they once did everything possible to exclude a group that they thought would be too numerous on campus, doesen't mean that they would do it again.

Sure Jan!

[Anonymous]

wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

[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?

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.

You can’t measure everything.. like David Hogg or Natalie Portman or Tom Morello.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Of course those are Olympic athletes but sure just look at data that tells you nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

It's interest that the top academic African Applicant's have a better than 50% chance of admission, but that it's still long odds for white and asians and somehow that isn't evidence of racial discrimination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.