Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?

What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.

Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.

I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.

No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias

They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?

What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.

Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.

I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.

No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias

They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.

No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of it is “legalized” cheating. I grew up in NY.

My Asian friends parents sent them to Cram schools in summer. They actually request the books for next school year then spend 40 hours a week all summer studying.

They had pros helping with Essay, SAT tutors. Many their focus was just homework. And they worked as a group helping each other.

Compared to me. I worked 20 hours a week in HS, had chores. SAT was a book I took out of library. Paid SAT and college fees my self no help. Most of childhood slept in living room as did not even a bedroom so no place to study.

But how do you compare GPAs and SATs scores. Could my Asian class mate done any better than me.

I got lucky and a college had a program for disadvantaged students with potential and I got on. I recall a fellow student was appalled I needed under a certain HS GPA and SAT score to qualify. He said unfair I got in by having a GPA under a random number. Ironically how is it fair he got in with a GPA over a random number? That guy ended up moving near me in my 40s, we both graduated college, got similar household incomes and similar jobs,

Basing admittance on a random number is silly. Holistic approach is better.

Holistic approach is good.
However what makes you think that you would be better in other extra areas such as ECs, Awards, Essay, Reasearch, etc than those
Asian kids.

Based on what you said, they are probably overall better on those areas as well.

Neither is "better" that is the point of having both in the same college.

They can't have everyone in the college.
let's not go to fairy tales

That's right, somebody sold the high SAT holders a "fairy tale" story if they give up their childhood for test prep they will be given the golden ticket. Then they see their peers with lower test scores going to their #1 college and they are mad that they were lied to, but they were lied to by their parents... not society, not colleges, their parents.

Both are just as good... so sometimes the low SAT score (of course it's still in the top 10% of the nation) get admitted over those with a slightly higher test score.

Asians are not getting passed over in favor of kids with a "slightly" lower SAT score, but a massively lower score.

Above a certain baseline level, for the most part, everyone will do well. Maybe some majors will have higher baselines in one area or another. The point is that above a certain level, higher SAT scores don’t really add anything to an application. This is particularly true if the person with “massively lower” (I doubt it, but ok) scores has actually done something with their abilities (published poetry, written and directed a play….) while the higher scorer not only has not gone beyond simply having high scores, but achieved them through focused tutoring.

tldr: Above a certain baseline level, higher test scores don’t really add that much.

DP.. is there some data that supports what you are saying?

I'm not disagreeing with you but what would be the cutoff? Data would need to be analyzed to support that argument and define what that threshold is.

I think any cutoffs or cutoff ranges would vary with the specific test and the school environment. At a certain level though, if everyone is “smart” knowing one more word or solving one more problem doesn’t add any meaningful qualitative difference. People are talking about test scores in ways that don’t really make sense — although talking about ranges of scores might make a lot of sense if the ranges actually represent meaningful differences.

I agree with you about the data needing to be analyzed— and even that assumes that the tests accurately measure what they think they do AND also correlate with school success or whatever variables seem meaningful. It’s also highly possible that different types of data mean different things for different types of students. I don’t have any specific data to support this — or time to track it down. I do have a background that includes testing, test construction, and educational assessment and consulting FWIW (although not specifically with prospective college students).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that the focus on race is outdated, if anything it should be that kids who come from less means; rural poverty, inner city low income situations get a bump in admissions if they have stats that would otherwise put them in the bottom 25 percent of typical admits. That is what will bring real diversity to campuses. A poor white kid from appalachia who worked their butt off in school brings more diversity of life experience than a black kid who went to GDS, vacations on Martha's Vineyard and is full pay.
Racial diversity was very much needed 20 years ago on college campuses but now they need to focus on economic diversity. The colleges will continue to admit a variety of racial groups because there are thousands "URM" who will still get in without their race being considered. They have the merits.

I’m genuinely curious. What exactly do you think has changed in the last 20 years such that things have shifted from focusing on race as being “very much needed” to focusing on “economic means” instead of race? And, if you’re comfortable answering this, how old are you? I’d like to know how you’re evaluating these issues, and I’m wondering if your age relative to mine (Black female, 63) might give you perspectives that I don’t have myself.

As to your example, I might agree with you. I do wonder, though, why you’re comparing the poor white kid from Appalachia with the Black kid from GDS — when neither of these is well-represented in elite colleges. The numbers of Black students with elite prep educations and the money to summer in Oak Bluffs is tiny — relative to Black Americans, Americans, or almost any group you might want to choose. It strikes me as odd and problematic to pit those two students against each other when the greater student body — including legacies — likely looks like neither. It’s like they’re fighting over the small percentage of diversity slots — rather than looking at who might add significant perspectives that might be underrepresented in the larger student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

It's interest that the top academic African Applicant's have a better than 50% chance of admission, but that it's still long odds for white and asians and somehow that isn't evidence of racial discrimination

Just in case no one has mentioned this yet (I’m still reading through the thread), it’s likely that the numbers of white students and Asian students who apply are astronomically larger than the numbers of African American students. Native Americans don’t even get a column. So understanding the numbers and what they mean is very limited without knowing how many students are in each category. And of course the racial categories cross with other categories such as sports and legacies. So one reason the admission stats might be so high for the African American and Hispanic students could be because they are relatively very small numbers. ( As in 56 % of 10 students vs 13 % of 100 students will yield 5 students vs 13 ).

So you're saying there is a racial quota? I can't wait for this decision to come down

No. I haven’t said that at all.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe this thread is on 65 pages...get over it people the ruse is up. Step up, work hard and learn. AA is not relevant in 2022, as hard as that is hard to hear for some, deal with it. Figure out your new grift to be successful and embrace it...the "oppressed" always have an angle to get their piece of the pie. Hell, It's literally an industry and artform now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

It's interest that the top academic African Applicant's have a better than 50% chance of admission, but that it's still long odds for white and asians and somehow that isn't evidence of racial discrimination

Just in case no one has mentioned this yet (I’m still reading through the thread), it’s likely that the numbers of white students and Asian students who apply are astronomically larger than the numbers of African American students. Native Americans don’t even get a column. So understanding the numbers and what they mean is very limited without knowing how many students are in each category. And of course the racial categories cross with other categories such as sports and legacies. So one reason the admission stats might be so high for the African American and Hispanic students could be because they are relatively very small numbers. ( As in 56 % of 10 students vs 13 % of 100 students will yield 5 students vs 13 ).

So you're saying there is a racial quota? I can't wait for this decision to come down

NP. Or it could be fewer black students even apply and the ones who do are actually qualified.

If they are equally qualified but 4 times more likely to get in based on race, that seems a lot like discrimination.

How do you know there are being selected based on race?
Could it be cultural and social differences that make them stand out?

DP. Of course. A small number of highly qualified students, with specific skills (lacrosse, fencing, bassoon) apply — and their acceptance numbers are being compared with students from groups with larger numbers and a much wider range of qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think socio-economic based affirmative action would be a lot more fair than race based. Why isn't that used instead?

Actually it is used at many schools. That’s part of what a holistic evaluation with the goal of getting a diverse class usually includes.

[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:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?

What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.

Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.

I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.

No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias

They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.

No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.

Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe this thread is on 65 pages...get over it people the ruse is up. Step up, work hard and learn. AA is not relevant in 2022, as hard as that is hard to hear for some, deal with it. Figure out your new grift to be successful and embrace it...the "oppressed" always have an angle to get their piece of the pie. Hell, It's literally an industry and artform now.

Lol That’s why so many schools and professions were almost exclusively white and male for so long, right? Oh the crocodile tears when the privileged have to share even a few crumbs from their pie. Systemic discrimination has indeed been an industry, and dismantling possible remedies is — figuratively— approaching an art form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think socio-economic based affirmative action would be a lot more fair than race based. Why isn't that used instead?

Actually it is used at many schools. That’s part of what a holistic evaluation with the goal of getting a diverse class usually includes.

See the linked study on the previous page that low-income Asians will fill most of the seats based on socioeconomic diversity, followed by low-income whites.

[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:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?

What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.

Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.

I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.

No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias

They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.

No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.

Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group

No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.

[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:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?

What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.

Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.

I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.

No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias

They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.

No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.

Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group

No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.

That argument goes both ways. Those seats are available to URMs as well.

If there is something inherently valuable about the Harvard seats, then people will have views on who "should" get them.

[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:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?

What?

DP.. apparently, SATs are culturally bias, hence Black people score lower on SATs. But since Asian Americans score higher on SATs that must mean that they have more in common with white people.

That's the argument. And yes, it's laughable and ignorant.

Then what is your reason for AA people scoring lower?

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

And that, right there, ladies and gents, is why colleges have the current policy.

How would anyone other than the kid know why they score lower?

I'll ask you this: how does an admission office who has never met the student give that student a low "personality" score even as the interviewer gave that student a high personality score.

Go ahead, say it out loud. I dare you. You know you think it. Have some courage and show everyone what you really think.

The argument that black kids don't do as well on SATs compared to Asian kids must mean that the SAT is culturally bias is a dumb argument, as if an Asian American is culturally closer to white America than a black kid whose ancestors have probably lived in the US for many generations.

I have no idea why they score lower. I was not making a claim to know. PP made a claim what they knew it wasn't.

You understand that difference, right?

And we are not talking about "the kid" taking the test, which is an absurd reference. We're talking about races of people and a policy designed by colleges to ensure they can get the students they want to build the class they need. These questions of why are gigantic academic and intellectual ones which we may never solve in our lifetime. However, we can ensure those reasons - whatever they are - don't continue to hurt people and stop colleges from building the class they want.

The "build the class they want" argument is the same argument that white people used way back to implement holistic admissions to keep out the Jews. It's basically social engineering in favor of one side over the other.

No it is not the same argument. In any way. One was designed to exclude a certain type of people, and the other is done to ensure one type of person is not excluded. This is so obvious and the fact that you deny it shows your bias

They both are designed to exclude qualified applicants in order to admit less qualified applicants. One is already illegal and the other will be once this decision is released.

No they are not. One is designed to not exclude certain people. I’ll keep saying it if you keep denying it.

Because you seem to think there are infinite seats. Something designed to include one group is also necessarily designed to exclude anyone who is not a member of that group

No I do not think there are infinite seats at Harvard. But I do think there are more places than students nationwide, because there are.

One is designed to not exclude certain people. Not. Exclude.

What an incoherent argument "there are more places than students nationwide, because there are"!

Because I said so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think socio-economic based affirmative action would be a lot more fair than race based. Why isn't that used instead?

Actually it is used at many schools. That’s part of what a holistic evaluation with the goal of getting a diverse class usually includes.

See the linked study on the previous page that low-income Asians will fill most of the seats based on socioeconomic diversity, followed by low-income whites.

And that's a bad thing according to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. So, it's not really about being fair to help the disadvantaged