Post SCOTUS Ruling: Let the Essays Begin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A supplemental essay prompt from Sarah Lawrence college for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle:

“In a 2023 majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university,’” the question reads. “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Quoting directly from the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling and using it as an essay prompt.

Will other colleges follow suit?

Thoughts?

I think the problem with SL's prompt is the ending, the question itself: "describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Are applicants to interpret "the Court's decision" as ending affirmative action? The college is asking how an applicants educational goals are affected by the end of affirmative action. Or, are applicants to interpret "the Court's decision" as referring to Robert's language about race affecting a person's life?

Either way, the final sentence of the prompt is asking directly about race; is it not doing exactly what the opinion forbids?

But couldn’t the response be that their education is impacted negatively by the reduction in diversity that the decision would likely cause? So if the student wants to be in a diverse environment, they need to closely examine the school, its statistics and culture.

There is more than one way to answer it.

That's a good point, though that involves assuming colleges cannot enroll diverse classes due to the decision. (Frankly, I think the inner workings of college admissions is so far beyond high school seniors' knowledge and experience to a point of being completely inappropriate.) Sarah Lawrence admissions "experts" revealing that they can't do it before they've yet to try, not a good look.

[Anonymous]

Does not matter what prompt is given. First Amendment protects applicants' right to write whatever essay they like.

The sh**show I'm almost looking forward to is when the ambulance chasers start harassing people on campus demanding to see their essays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does not matter what prompt is given. First Amendment protects applicants' right to write whatever essay they like.

The sh**show I'm almost looking forward to is when the ambulance chasers start harassing people on campus demanding to see their essays.

Re-read the 1st Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does not matter what prompt is given. First Amendment protects applicants' right to write whatever essay they like.

The sh**show I'm almost looking forward to is when the ambulance chasers start harassing people on campus demanding to see their essays.

+1

Unfortunately, someone from the 95% who get rejected will have a manufactured gripe after not having a URM to scapegoat anymore.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely, applicants can write whatever they want. And per the Court opinion, colleges should not be making a decision based on race itself, but on some life experience etc (that may happen to have been impacted by race). But, as a practical matter, is race as mentioned in the essay something that cannot be unseen, even if not explicitly referenced in admissions notes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does not matter what prompt is given. First Amendment protects applicants' right to write whatever essay they like.

The sh**show I'm almost looking forward to is when the ambulance chasers start harassing people on campus demanding to see their essays.

Sigh.

It’s not about what students are asked to write. It’s about if the school then uses the results of the essays as pretextual reasons to sort students according to racial quotas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely, applicants can write whatever they want. And per the Court opinion, colleges should not be making a decision based on race itself, but on some life experience etc (that may happen to have been impacted by race). But, as a practical matter, is race as mentioned in the essay something that cannot be unseen, even if not explicitly referenced in admissions notes?

It all comes down to the procedures the colleges adopt to evaluate the student on the basis of race.

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

[Anonymous]

Schools cannot work race into their algorithm. Applicants can write whatever they want.

The ambulance chasers are praying that people

1. Waste their essays writing about race
2. Banking that they will be able to sue schools every single time a "URM" is accepted and force them to cough up their essays.

And I can't wait until they reveal students' cancer, HIV status, mental health treatments, history of physical abuse, parents in jail, scratch off lottery winnings, and a thousand other things that are none of their business.

Get your popcorn and wet wipes. This is going to be trashy AF

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

Actually, it is not a good example and isn't analogous at all.

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

There’s a pretty big difference between a for profit business with the goal of selling a product to the public and non-profit academic institutions which provide educational opportunities to students. There is nothing the least bit similar about the goals and purposes of these organizations so it makes no sense at all to compare their selection procedures.

Clearly someone came up with this talking point years ago and keeps sending it out for people to use. They think it’s is very clever, but it is actually too clever by half, as it simply shows in what regard the people who use this talking point have for the people they are trying to persuade.

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

There’s a pretty big difference between a for profit business with the goal of selling a product to the public and non-profit academic institutions which provide educational opportunities to students. There is nothing the least bit similar about the goals and purposes of these organizations so it makes no sense at all to compare their selection procedures.

Clearly someone came up with this talking point years ago and keeps sending it out for people to use. They think it’s is very clever, but it is actually too clever by half, as it simply shows in what regard the people who use this talking point have for the people they are trying to persuade.

Typo: …in what regard the people who use this talking point hold the people they are tryin to persuade.
Sorry!

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

There’s a pretty big difference between a for profit business with the goal of selling a product to the public and non-profit academic institutions which provide educational opportunities to students. There is nothing the least bit similar about the goals and purposes of these organizations so it makes no sense at all to compare their selection procedures.

Clearly someone came up with this talking point years ago and keeps sending it out for people to use. They think it’s is very clever, but it is actually too clever by half, as it simply shows in what regard the people who use this talking point have for the people they are trying to persuade.

Exactly. In what other area would someone argue: “these people who are paid by a for-profit entity are directly analogous to these other people who make payments to a non-profit entity, we should expect these two markets to operate exactly the same way.”

[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:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Can you help those of us who aren't as smart as you to understand why this isn't a good analogy? It seems pretty on point and analogous to me.

The explanation for why the NBA comparison talking point is a bad analogy has been explained on this site over and over again. The posters who are using it are hoping people who read it for the first time don’t take the time to analyze exactly why it is not at all on point.

Someone posted an excellent explanation of why the NBA is not a useful analogy to educational institutions on this site very recently. I’ll look for it and post a link later.

I think it’s a good example. Are we supposed to examine why athletic ability and academic ability are not analogous?

The people you are arguing against believe that there is no such thing as “academic ability.” Worse academic performance by POC students is always and everywhere due to racist institutions or practices. Crazy, I know, but that is what they really think.