NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see whether the ruling prohibits consideration of gender.

I don’t see why colleges would eliminate preference for athletes if affirmative action is banned. What’s the rationale?

I understand why ED and legacy could be eliminated but it may not be in the colleges’ interests to do so.

Right - I think the OP’s topic headline doesn’t reflect the article. It did refer to ED and legacy admissions being at risk, but not athletic preferences at all. Colleges definitely do NOT look at them the same way.

If anything, colleges are going to rely upon athletic preferences even more because that’s a clear race-blind way that can have the effect of increasing underrepresented minority students.

That’s a myth at top colleges. Look at pics of he LAX, squash, water polo, swimming/diving, field hockey crew, golf, etc teams. Even football at an Ivy has more white kids than you would suspect. Lots of very white niche sports at IVys.

Please see my response to this same point at 12:52. In summary, that’s understood, but the reason why elite colleges lean on those sports is that they’re worried about being “too Asian” much more than being “too white and wealthy” in the event that they eliminate athletic preferences. That white lacrosse player is replacing a “low personality” Asian student as opposed to a Black or Latino student, so athletics help provide the “right type” of diversity in the eyes of those colleges. Whether that’s right or wrong is very fair for debate, but I can’t emphasize enough that being “too Asian” is the greater fear for these places than being “too wealthy and white” as of now.

At the same time, athletic preferences are possibly the clearest legal race-neutral way to *directly* admit material numbers of underrepresented minorities in the non-country club sports. They aren’t going away at all - anyone that thinks otherwise needs to understand that being “less Asian” (not “less wealthy and white”) has been the aim of all of these shady application processes like totally subjective personality scores.

Listen to the podcast Gate Crashers. All the stuff we associate with college admissions at Ivies today (sports, geographic diversity, interviewing candidates) was originally used to keep out Jews and is now used to keep out Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Additionally, I think a by-product of the Supreme Court ruling will be the dismantlement of the historically black colleges and universities. They will no longer qualify for federal funding because that would be “racist” under the SC’s twisted logic. I give HCBUs maybe a decade before the vast majority are shut down due to disqualification for federal funds and programs.

The consequences of this decision will be Orwellian.

I don't think you know what Orwellian means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Athletics exist because there is money to be made in college sports.

Not in college sports. In big time football and mens basketball. You think the LAX team, the squash team and the diving team make money for a college? Not revenue sports are already being cut. Big time. And given the demographic cliff, the interest in supporting low income and first gen students the out of control costs that make private colleges impossible for more and more kids and the need to balance the budget, carrying a squash or water polo Texan (while charging above $80k a year) is going to become less frequent.

https://theconversation.com/colleges-are-eliminating-sports-teams-and-runners-and-golfers-are-paying-more-of-a-price-than-football-or-basketball-players-148965

https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/07/31/george-washington-university-cuts-7-athletic-programs-citing-pandemic/ (7 sports at GW, $200M saved)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

[Anonymous]

I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

To be contrary. Men have made a mess of things so I don’t mind women having more power.

The dating market place is global, and maybe we need to be having less children to save the earth.

Incels will always be there and proliferate. Better to give women power to squash these maggots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most fair way is to have comprehensive tests on each subjects, and give every kid a chance to show his/her knowledge (achievement in HS) and learning aptitude (potential). All the soft and subjective criteria result in unfairness.

But soft skills are really important in the workplace. I’d rather hire a slightly less academically inclined person who has a strong EQ. Ability to work with others, integrity, and grit matter a lot in life. I think that is why you see many high performers and CEOs that were not top of their class. Intelligence and academic achievement are not the whole picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

Good point.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most fair way is to have comprehensive tests on each subjects, and give every kid a chance to show his/her knowledge (achievement in HS) and learning aptitude (potential). All the soft and subjective criteria result in unfairness.

But soft skills are really important in the workplace. I’d rather hire a slightly less academically inclined person who has a strong EQ. Ability to work with others, integrity, and grit matter a lot in life. I think that is why you see many high performers and CEOs that were not top of their class. Intelligence and academic achievement are not the whole picture.

I agree. But I also agree to the post you cited.
Admitting students based on comprehensive tests gives kids an equal opportunity for getting into suitable education. But getting opportunities for job or future work could be based on academics as well as EQ. They are not the same thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

Wow. No misandry here. /s/

[Anonymous]

Affirmative action is used by progressives to further their agenda anyway so I say, bring it on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think the colleges are gonna depend on historical red lining to find diverse neighborhoods

Uh, that would include the very white and very poor places like, the Appalachias and West Virginia. The article discusses how socioeconomic diversity will become a driving factor. However, the weakness of focusing on socioeconomics generally is that poor kids don’t even both to apply unless there is sustained and targeted outreach. A poor black kid is more likely to apply than a poor white kid because of affirmative action.

Literally nobody Black applies to a school thinking they will get in because of affirmative action. The bulk of black kids who apply to top schools are the very best of the best, and the top school are losing those people at a rapid rate to HBCUs where they know for certain that they are being picked fairly because of their skill. You can talk about affirmative action all you want but even the most diverse major schools have no more than 9% black students, 4% less than Black representation in the country. Most fall in at 3-4% --WITH affirmative action and goals. I have absolutely no doubt that Asian kids are being discriminated against at school who don't want to "change their culture: because of alumni pressure. But I can guarantee you that Black students are not the beneficiaries of the discrimination. No majority white school afford of having too many Asians is filling up their ranks with Black people instead. They're filing them up with legacies, athletes and full pay ED students, who are white.

Your claim is not at all reflected in the data that has been made public as a result of this lawsuit, where black admits score hundreds of points lower on standardized tests than their white counterparts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Additionally, I think a by-product of the Supreme Court ruling will be the dismantlement of the historically black colleges and universities. They will no longer qualify for federal funding because that would be “racist” under the SC’s twisted logic. I give HCBUs maybe a decade before the vast majority are shut down due to disqualification for federal funds and programs.

The consequences of this decision will be Orwellian.

I don't think you know what Orwellian means.

+1

Orwellian is to discriminate by race in order to end racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Pushing equal opportunities in K-12 is not going to make Asian Americans more likely to play football. Nor is it going to make white Americans more willing to take 12-17 AP exams. In fact the white Americans with the best access to opportunity, private school students, simply colluded to stop taking AP exams altogether. It’s also pretty clear that Asian American families with HHIs in the $100-$300k range are far more willing than Black and white families in that range to stretch financially for a high-ranked school. None of those things is going to change with additional access to opportunity. They are decisions based on different cultural values.