SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %

[Anonymous]

But they're not making factual findings. They are an appellate court. How many times do we need to explain that?

By the time cases reach them, there are no disputes over what the evidence is or isn't. Only what the law says as applied to the evidence.

[Anonymous]

The majority opinion presented by Chief Justice John Roberts '76 found that Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points,” Roberts wrote. “We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”

Of course these are all based on evidences.

[Anonymous]

Your use of the word "evidences" evidences a complete lack of understanding about the law and appellate litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your use of the word "evidences" evidences a complete lack of understanding about the law and appellate litigation.

I rather suspect it evidences a yellow face sock puppet using repetition for humorous effect.

[Anonymous]

Entirely possible. It's a copy and paste job from Harvard's student newspaper, not an actual argument.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/7/20/sffa-decision-asian-american-discrimination/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your use of the word "evidences" evidences a complete lack of understanding about the law and appellate litigation.

“Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points,” Roberts wrote. “We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However in 2024 if you don't think that a significant portion of the kids scoring over 1500 on the SAT are being heavily prepped by very well-resourced parents and schools that seek to maximize standardized test scores of students than you are naive.

1500 is a very good score in 2024, but it's really not that impressive. It basically equates to a 1440 from when most of us took the test 30 to 40 years ago.

In 2024 a 1500 is a good score. 🙂

And 1440 was a GOOD score 40 years ago.

So what?

You must be old.

Geez.

1440 is still a great score.

I'm increasingly coming to the view that younger people are bringing some hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Entirely possible. It's a copy and paste job from Harvard's student newspaper, not an actual argument.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/7/20/sffa-decision-asian-american-discrimination/

Is there an error in the direct quote?

[Anonymous]

The direct quote is a clear example of the difference between holding and dicta, which again shows that you lack both experience and knowledge about appellate litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However in 2024 if you don't think that a significant portion of the kids scoring over 1500 on the SAT are being heavily prepped by very well-resourced parents and schools that seek to maximize standardized test scores of students than you are naive.

1500 is a very good score in 2024, but it's really not that impressive. It basically equates to a 1440 from when most of us took the test 30 to 40 years ago.

This is an interesting point. The test is "too easy" at the top in the sense that, if they augmented it with harder questions, there are a bunch of kids who would be well to the right of 1600. So SAT differences substantially understate the preparedness gap at the top. When you look at, say, Asian American outperformance on the SAT as a group, this outperformance would be much more extreme if the test were appropriately hard.

The changes you are mentioning have exacerbated this effect. It is now much harder to distinguish among top students using the SAT because the scores are so compressed up there. This is probably by design.

I don't think the difficulty has changed much at all. Sure, some types of verbal questions are now gone, but my understanding is that the scoring scale has changed (along with getting rid of any penalty for wrong answers).

The college board issues percentiles and the percentiles have changed. The curve is now a lot flatter than it was in the 1980s.

Yes but people now prep for the SATs in a way they didn't in the 80s. Kids today spend more of their lives testing and learning hot to test and multiple choice tests are inherently game-able.

The curve isn't flatter now because they made the test easier. It's flatter because people started working harder to score higher. There's also something of an upper limit on how hard you can make the test and still keep the multiple choice format.

If we *really* wanted to assess aptitude we'd do oral and written exams with more open ended question formats that required students to show their work and explain reasoning. This would of course be prohibitively expensive and there's no way to make it accessible to every high school kid in the country. So instead we have the SAT and that curve will continue to flatten.

This 100%. I sat in on hiring scientists in India and it was abysmal. The top candidates could not explain simple principles on the spot. Everything in their resume and testing background was flawless but they could not think.

[Anonymous]

The ruling is very clear. Some people play dumb and pretend don't understand it. Maybe they are actually stupid.

The Court said:

“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ruling is very clear. Some people play dumb and pretend don't understand it. Maybe they are actually stupid.

The Court said:

“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”

SCOTUSblog disagrees with you on what was the actual holding/ruling, and what was merely dicta.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ruling is very clear. Some people play dumb and pretend don't understand it. Maybe they are actually stupid.

The Court said:

“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”

SCOTUSblog disagrees with you on what was the actual holding/ruling, and what was merely dicta.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/

SCOTUS ruled what Harvard did violated US Constitution, 14th amendment. You seem to live in a parallel universe.

[Anonymous]

That’s all they ruled. Everything else you’re quoting is superfluous to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However in 2024 if you don't think that a significant portion of the kids scoring over 1500 on the SAT are being heavily prepped by very well-resourced parents and schools that seek to maximize standardized test scores of students than you are naive.

1500 is a very good score in 2024, but it's really not that impressive. It basically equates to a 1440 from when most of us took the test 30 to 40 years ago.

In 2024 a 1500 is a good score. 🙂

And 1440 was a GOOD score 40 years ago.

So what?

You must be old.

Geez.

1440 is still a great score.

I'm increasingly coming to the view that younger people are bringing some hate.

Having to go back 40 years to make a point about SAT scores in today's college admissions landscape is cringeworthy.