Accreditors are considering dropping diversity requirements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

It has always been nearly impossible for poor students to compete with wealthy students and compete at the highest level. It is a rare talent that can overcome large wealth differences.

It is NOT a rare talent that can overcome racial disparity. Harvard is about 15%black. Without preferences it would be 6-8% black. This is not nothing but by pushing the rope to 15% you get a situation where Harvard is cannibalizing the Columbias of the world to achieve that 15% and the least qualified black students struggle a little bit because Harvard really isn't significantly more difficult than Columbia. But then Columbia has to cannibalize the Cornells of the world and by the time Cornell tries to achieve its diversity goals it is getting URM students that would have otherwise gone to USC and Northeastern and now the differences are large enough that almost none of the URM students are among the top students and are grossly over-represented among the worst performing students. If each of these schools accepted based on merit, they would all have somewhere between 6-8% black and 8-10% hispanic with the difference going pretty evenly to asians and whites.

This isn't RWNJs saying that this is how the numbers would shake out based on race blaind admissions standards. This is Harvard and the amicus briefs saying this is how the numbers would shake out without explicit racial preferences like affimative action.

Wrong. These schools would be much more asian than White. Asian Americans are the superiors in the academic space, and white students are only kept in stable numbers because of unmeritocratic bs like extracurricular activities. Across the board, the best students are asian, rarely white european, and even more rarely white american.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good system would be merit, so these whiners would realize their kids are nowhere near the top of intellect.

The issue is that merit and SES go hand in hand. Which is why it makes sense to make an effort to include first gen college students and students from lower SES, regardless of race.

No we should just commit to highest intellect. Poor people can go to other schools if they aren't smart. We should be about intellect first.

If you believe that “highest intellect” can be identified using a common test and testing a population at a certain age without regard to previous circumstances it is your intellect which is lacking.

Yada yada. That justified you using brute force racial quota. Cry me a river. I don’t care.

are you here just to listen to yourself? what's the point of posting if you aren't open to other ideas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hope that we aren’t supporting the idea of being fine with schools discriminating just because the far right mod of to blame everything on DEI. It’s concerning how quickly everyone is forcing the pendulum in the exact opposite direction. People need to accept a bit of balance.

Can you point to any reactionary discrimination?
Can you point to colleges discriminating against blacks and hispanics the way asian were able to prove discrimination against asians?

Well this all started somewhere right? we just got out of affirmative action; i wouldn't be surprised if some institutions were risk averse and weren't looking to accept black students in high volumes for the near future. Under recruitment will become more popular if the trump admin persists.

DP. So you’re just projecting and playing fear monger. Come back when you have concrete and provable evidence of discrimination like Asians did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good system would be merit, so these whiners would realize their kids are nowhere near the top of intellect.

The issue is that merit and SES go hand in hand. Which is why it makes sense to make an effort to include first gen college students and students from lower SES, regardless of race.

No we should just commit to highest intellect. Poor people can go to other schools if they aren't smart. We should be about intellect first.

If you believe that “highest intellect” can be identified using a common test and testing a population at a certain age without regard to previous circumstances it is your intellect which is lacking.

Yada yada. That justified you using brute force racial quota. Cry me a river. I don’t care.

are you here just to listen to yourself? what's the point of posting if you aren't open to other ideas

Why would one be open to nonsense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

Having merit based process and taking away racist considerations is not adopting the Chinese system. And nobody cares what you want or don’t want. You can’t stop it.

? give me a step by step as to how this leads us to a "merit based process." What does merit even look like for you? No top school is choosing solely by top SAT and gpa.

No, meritocracy doesn’t mean SAT and GPA only. But surely it doesn’t include race and sexual orientation etc.

I'd prefer that system. Just scale the SAT to be towards the top 0.01% of students rather than the bottom 50%.

Your kid would miss that by about 50% so I’m not sure why you prefer such a system.

If my kid is only smart enough to get into state school, that's fine. The top schools should adhere to deeply rigorous examination. I don't believe the colleges are meritocratic until they're 70-90% asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good system would be merit, so these whiners would realize their kids are nowhere near the top of intellect.

The issue is that merit and SES go hand in hand. Which is why it makes sense to make an effort to include first gen college students and students from lower SES, regardless of race.

No we should just commit to highest intellect. Poor people can go to other schools if they aren't smart. We should be about intellect first.

If you believe that “highest intellect” can be identified using a common test and testing a population at a certain age without regard to previous circumstances it is your intellect which is lacking.

Yada yada. That justified you using brute force racial quota. Cry me a river. I don’t care.

are you here just to listen to yourself? what's the point of posting if you aren't open to other ideas

Why would one be open to nonsense?

So what's your point of being here if anyone who disagrees with you is spewing nonsense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hope that we aren’t supporting the idea of being fine with schools discriminating just because the far right mod of to blame everything on DEI. It’s concerning how quickly everyone is forcing the pendulum in the exact opposite direction. People need to accept a bit of balance.

100%. I am against hiring on the basis of race, and therefore I have never been a big fan of affirmative action. But now what I am seeing is that the people crying "racism" against white and asian people are ones who don't mind racism towards black and hispanic people.

Specify what racism? It’s so obvious you’re just pretending to be a moderate.

You're either willfully ignorant or blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hope that we aren’t supporting the idea of being fine with schools discriminating just because the far right mod of to blame everything on DEI. It’s concerning how quickly everyone is forcing the pendulum in the exact opposite direction. People need to accept a bit of balance.

Can you point to any reactionary discrimination?
Can you point to colleges discriminating against blacks and hispanics the way asian were able to prove discrimination against asians?

Well this all started somewhere right? we just got out of affirmative action; i wouldn't be surprised if some institutions were risk averse and weren't looking to accept black students in high volumes for the near future. Under recruitment will become more popular if the trump admin persists.

DP. So you’re just projecting and playing fear monger. Come back when you have concrete and provable evidence of discrimination like Asians did.

Wow, someone is deeply troubled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hope that we aren’t supporting the idea of being fine with schools discriminating just because the far right mod of to blame everything on DEI. It’s concerning how quickly everyone is forcing the pendulum in the exact opposite direction. People need to accept a bit of balance.

100%. I am against hiring on the basis of race, and therefore I have never been a big fan of affirmative action. But now what I am seeing is that the people crying "racism" against white and asian people are ones who don't mind racism towards black and hispanic people.

Specify what racism? It’s so obvious you’re just pretending to be a moderate.

You're either willfully ignorant or blind.

They lack empathy and are committed to racism above all, just ignore them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

Stop that BS propaganda! The biggest beneficiary of DEI has always been rich blacks and Hispanics (they’re actually mostly white people). It has never been about the poors.

Okay? But now trump is making it difficult for poor black and Hispanic people to go to college. His loan policies are awful and the endowment tax discourages institutions from taking in low income students.

Also questbridge, the outcomes of various top CBOs, and fly in programs combat your nonsense about “biggest beneficiaries of DEI.” The biggest beneficiaries of DEI were white women, who have soured after getting access to education and then students from impoverished, first gen backgrounds.

Disagree completely. I’m assuming by DEI you’re referencing affirmative action. White woman weren’t the beneficiaries of affirmative action; they mostly just were allowed to get outcomes commensurate with their skills and abilities. Take a look at the GPA and standardized test scores of white woman; they’re competitive for admissions all on their own; no “action” is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

Stop that BS propaganda! The biggest beneficiary of DEI has always been rich blacks and Hispanics (they’re actually mostly white people). It has never been about the poors.

Okay? But now trump is making it difficult for poor black and Hispanic people to go to college. His loan policies are awful and the endowment tax discourages institutions from taking in low income students.

Also questbridge, the outcomes of various top CBOs, and fly in programs combat your nonsense about “biggest beneficiaries of DEI.” The biggest beneficiaries of DEI were white women, who have soured after getting access to education and then students from impoverished, first gen backgrounds.

Disagree completely. I’m assuming by DEI you’re referencing affirmative action. White woman weren’t the beneficiaries of affirmative action; they mostly just were allowed to get outcomes commensurate with their skills and abilities. Take a look at the GPA and standardized test scores of white woman; they’re competitive for admissions all on their own; no “action” is necessary.

Bro, when were you born? White women received exhaustive amounts of handout positions and pipeline initiatives to get into the careers they have today. In tech and various financial firms you still see white women soaring from DEI initiatives. Don't be disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

Having merit based process and taking away racist considerations is not adopting the Chinese system. And nobody cares what you want or don’t want. You can’t stop it.

? give me a step by step as to how this leads us to a "merit based process." What does merit even look like for you? No top school is choosing solely by top SAT and gpa.

No, meritocracy doesn’t mean SAT and GPA only. But surely it doesn’t include race and sexual orientation etc.

I'd prefer that system. Just scale the SAT to be towards the top 0.01% of students rather than the bottom 50%.

Your kid would miss that by about 50% so I’m not sure why you prefer such a system.

If my kid is only smart enough to get into state school, that's fine. The top schools should adhere to deeply rigorous examination. I don't believe the colleges are meritocratic until they're 70-90% asian.

You sure have a crazy limited view of merit and talent. Do you want us only to have engineering schools in the US? Do you think the great writers and poets of the century all scored in the top 0.01% of students on standardized exams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

It has always been nearly impossible for poor students to compete with wealthy students and compete at the highest level. It is a rare talent that can overcome large wealth differences.

It is NOT a rare talent that can overcome racial disparity. Harvard is about 15%black. Without preferences it would be 6-8% black. This is not nothing but by pushing the rope to 15% you get a situation where Harvard is cannibalizing the Columbias of the world to achieve that 15% and the least qualified black students struggle a little bit because Harvard really isn't significantly more difficult than Columbia. But then Columbia has to cannibalize the Cornells of the world and by the time Cornell tries to achieve its diversity goals it is getting URM students that would have otherwise gone to USC and Northeastern and now the differences are large enough that almost none of the URM students are among the top students and are grossly over-represented among the worst performing students. If each of these schools accepted based on merit, they would all have somewhere between 6-8% black and 8-10% hispanic with the difference going pretty evenly to asians and whites.

This isn't RWNJs saying that this is how the numbers would shake out based on race blaind admissions standards. This is Harvard and the amicus briefs saying this is how the numbers would shake out without explicit racial preferences like affimative action.

Wrong. These schools would be much more asian than White. Asian Americans are the superiors in the academic space, and white students are only kept in stable numbers because of unmeritocratic bs like extracurricular activities. Across the board, the best students are asian, rarely white european, and even more rarely white american.

Gosh, now I get it. You are an Asian Supremacist. I think you're better off arguing for your cause in the White Supremacist forums. I'll bet you could get people really riled up there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism). First-gen / low-income students are given aid based on their financial status, not race.

Sorry, but the color of your skin should not dictate the amount of aid or preference you get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

It has always been nearly impossible for poor students to compete with wealthy students and compete at the highest level. It is a rare talent that can overcome large wealth differences.

It is NOT a rare talent that can overcome racial disparity. Harvard is about 15%black. Without preferences it would be 6-8% black. This is not nothing but by pushing the rope to 15% you get a situation where Harvard is cannibalizing the Columbias of the world to achieve that 15% and the least qualified black students struggle a little bit because Harvard really isn't significantly more difficult than Columbia. But then Columbia has to cannibalize the Cornells of the world and by the time Cornell tries to achieve its diversity goals it is getting URM students that would have otherwise gone to USC and Northeastern and now the differences are large enough that almost none of the URM students are among the top students and are grossly over-represented among the worst performing students. If each of these schools accepted based on merit, they would all have somewhere between 6-8% black and 8-10% hispanic with the difference going pretty evenly to asians and whites.

This isn't RWNJs saying that this is how the numbers would shake out based on race blaind admissions standards. This is Harvard and the amicus briefs saying this is how the numbers would shake out without explicit racial preferences like affimative action.

Wrong. These schools would be much more asian than White. Asian Americans are the superiors in the academic space, and white students are only kept in stable numbers because of unmeritocratic bs like extracurricular activities. Across the board, the best students are asian, rarely white european, and even more rarely white american.

Gosh, now I get it. You are an Asian Supremacist. I think you're better off arguing for your cause in the White Supremacist forums. I'll bet you could get people really riled up there.

How am i an asian supremacist for arguing that our schools shouldn't racially manipulate themselves to have anti-asian policies. I understand Penn State or William & Mary being majority white, but ivies? Complete racism.