The plaintiff is an organization. An organization doesn't have gender or race. There are ton of Asian members in the organization. |
There wouldn't be any data. Schools would adapt and eliminate any explicit criteria like that. You have to then rely upon disparate impact analysis, but I'm not sure this Supreme Court wants to go in that direction because it would ultimately support more affirmative action for URM rather than less. |
Right, because the poor inner city black or Hispanic kid is working everyday after school to support their family. While your kid is taking test prep classes after school. See the difference? |
Any Asian American students who testified in the cases? After all, they are the supposed "victims." There are a lot of Asian American organizations that filed amicus briefs in the SFFA cases supporting race-conscious college admissions as well. Asian Americans aren't a monolith. |
When there are 50K-100K applications, you have to have some sort of number system, point system, and data. That's what Harvard had. You think the underpaid AOs really look at individual students as a person and remember them. Harvard used score system, and Asians getting high scores overall including ECs, leadership, awards, interviews, etc. So they had to invent the BS likability score. You can't really do the business without data. |
Of course, but it's actually not that difficult. Eliminate the separate "likability" score and it will find its way into their evaluation of the other subjective criteria, like the essay for example, or they will just group multiple factors together into a broad score of a set of other criteria. It's not like admissions "grading" is all that different from grading in HS. Grades in HS inevitably reflect many subjective components. The use of letters and numbers in your GPA make you think they are objective, but in many courses and assignments they really are just the product a lot of subjective judgments in evaluation, which is why a range, rather than a strict numerical ranking, is more appropriate. This is even true in things like math classes, where two students with "right" answers can get different grades based on teachers' subjective decisions about grading criteria, such as prioritizing how they display their answer or how they got to their answer. Some want you to use the exact formula the teacher taught the class and label your work exactly as they specified while others are happy to provide students the flexibility to get there different ways if they explain their work. Teachers also can just add extra assignments or extra credit that preference certain skills or work habits over others. Same is true for the grades in admissions. How could you possibly think an essay could be evaluated objectively? Two different reviewers are as likely to "grade" an essay differently than grade it the same if you ask them to do anything beyond putting it in broad categories. Plenty of room there for admissions officers to import their personal views into their evaluation of an essay. Heck, the same is true of their evaluation of a student's GPA. They could be biased against certain curricular choices or against certain schools, leading them to downgrade the importance of one kid's GPA that you might argue is nominally higher than another kid's GPA. Even the SAT can include those subjective decisions about how to weight the results (some of which can be made by the Dean of Admissions as a policy, but can also be part of a committee evaluation of a candidate). For example, how you evaluate students who do better on one portion of the test than another, how you deal with superscores, how you deal with splitters (higher GPA than SAT or lower GPA than SAT) etc. Given all these subjective evaluations, it's not difficult at all to understand that the process is inherently not "objective," so it's no leap to expect that the level of subjectivity already existing in whatever residual category a school like Harvard is using now will just find its way into the other criteria in a new admissions system. As there is still scarcity and they have to decide between similar candidates, there is plenty of room for subjective judgments. |
And they are drilled, drilled, drilled from early childhood to make sure they perform better than anyone else. So yeah, maybe not quite the secret sauce their target colleges are looking for. |
And there it is. Asian Americans want to be judged on their individual merits as an individual, not dismissed because they are lumped into a category. |
AA actually helps Asians indirectly. The Asian kids are told not to take anything for granted and that they have to work twice as hard to get the same outcome. Meanwhile, blacks and Hispanics who get into top colleges have the stigma of AA. In NY City, many black alumni of Specialized High schools do not want any form of AA for the high school tests because they do not want kids who qualify through the test to have to hear about how they got in only because of AA. Interestingly, there were many more blacks at specialized high schools in in 80s and 90s, wonder what happened that those numbers dropped drastically. |
If these kids are so so smart why do they have to work so hard? I'm much more impressed by the kid who didn't spend years prepping for the SAT who can get a near perfect score in one sitting. That kid is actually smart. |
If it is so easy to drill and discipline, I wonder why the other races are not doing it. The reason they are not doing it is because it takes a lot of effort to discipline a child. There are a lot Asian families that are poor where the parents work in mundane jobs but where the kids education is the priority. It's common saying in among Asians, the first generation works so that the second gen becomes doctors and lawyers and the second generation works so that the third gen has the luxury of doing what they want. |
Talent athletes practice practice practice hard. I'm all in favor of using IQ scores. |
That’s the point. There is no scientific evidence that one race is smarter than another. Disparity in IQ scores does not prove that there is racial disparity in INNATE intelligence. Btw my DS didn’t take ANY SAT prep course. Just bought a couple of books to study himself. Got 1590. Maybe that’s what you call “actually smart.” |
The constant refrain in here is that these kids worked so hard. So much harder than all the other kids. And they are prepared to do the work in college, blah blah. They deserve this. I'm talking about those kids. If they have to work so very hard, maybe they don't really have the raw talent necessary to succeed. Maybe universities don't care about all the extra hours spent to eke out every last point on the SAT or GPA at the likely expense of something else. Diminishing returns and all that. |
And if those athletes also have pretty high SAT scores that's even more impressive. They are multi talented. It wouldn't be worth giving up the sport to focus on getting another 40 useless points. |