Reply to Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Some facts about Holistic Admissions Criteria from Stanford Daily"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I am about 100 pages into The Gatekeepers, a book by a NYT education writer who tracked Wesleyan admissions one year. It's exactly as I assumed - admissions officers trying to score the best token minorities (Native American? BIG win), so they can round out their classes like the cast of Barney. They admit the door opens 'wider' for some token applicants, slams shut for others - despite high qualifications, there are just 'too many of their kind'. Whatever ups their rankings, is of course, welcomed. In addition, the admissions officers at Wesleyan and other colleges are convinced that earlier Supreme Court rulings actually gave them carte blanche permission to discriminate.

These policies stayed more hush-hush in the past, with admissions offices quickly shredding files, etc. afterwards to hide how they did things. Now, as politics has become more progressive, colleges are unabashedly speaking up. And are unapologetic when some get upset about their blatant racism - it is those complaining that are the racists in their minds.

Is it no surprise colleges are now being sued and the Supreme Court is looking at the Fisher case for the second time?  This progressive madness has to stop. If racism was wrong back in the day, it's still wrong. Furthermore, racial balancing, which is exactly what schools are boldly practicing now, was determined to be unconstitutional in the Grutter decision.

I fully expect that Obama will give a little threatening talk before the SC rules on this case, because it's thought that the SC will in fact rule in favor of Fisher.

Think Progress certainly thinks so:

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/06/29/3675053/bad-news-affirmative-action-us-supreme-court-will-rehear-fisher-v-university-texas/

I hope they are correct.[/quote]

the scope of fisher at the widest possible ruling IMO will still only affect so-called public institutions (even though privates take plenty of federal dollars as well).

[/quote]

Directly, yes. But it's a start. And it will scare the hell out of privates.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics