Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court DID NOT strike down Affirmative Action

Admission preferences for legacies, donors, employee families and special recommendations are still allowed

The Court struck down Affirmative Action For everyone except white people.

This will be a leopards eating faces moment for the litigants.

Again, this also had mainly impacted Asian folks, but you conveniently gloss over that fact. Pretty sad Harvard also ranked them so low on “personality” tests, but that’s another story altogether.

And Asians think they will benefit from this? Get real. They will take more kids from "Big3" type private schools and from selected know "poor URM" zip codes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court DID NOT strike down Affirmative Action

Admission preferences for legacies, donors, employee families and special recommendations are still allowed

The Court struck down Affirmative Action For everyone except white people.

This will be a leopards eating faces moment for the litigants.

Again, this also had mainly impacted Asian folks, but you conveniently gloss over that fact. Pretty sad Harvard also ranked them so low on “personality” tests, but that’s another story altogether.

Having taught many college students, I understand this.

I mean did you, tho, Anonymous poster?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the ruling. The open racism
against Asian students boggled my mind. There has also been a large anti white male issue happening and now less white males even go to college than before.The differences in criteria have been unfair. You even see this in kids who grew up on same street and parents make same money but are various ethnicities. Like many things people push things until enough people say no. I do think the SAT will be gone soon because schools will look to find away around this. FWIW I always thought the SAT was also unfair because you need to spend so much money in tutoring and for every genius that doesn’t need it you have thousands more kids who need the tutoring to get over these crazy scores.

Many people don't want to admit that Asians, as a group, are very smart. Their intelligence shows up at a very ypung age in preschool and elementary school settings, long before private tutoring or SAT prep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These universities will just adjust there admissions criteria to eliminate the things that preference rich white, Asian, Latino applicants. They already eliminated standardized tests. They want a diverse class and they will figure out a way to get it.

Translation: they will water down criteria and let in a whole bunch of unqualified people who’ll fail out OR they’ll have to make curricula easier, bringing the education standards down for everyone. What a brilliant plan. We can all be equal when we are all equally mediocre to crappy.

This is what I was thinking as well. If Harvard begins using zip codes, possibly ends legacy admissions, is intent on letting in a diverse set of applicants by new means, such as zip codes, or other novel methods, are they getting the most qualified or are they just getting the student body makeup up they are looking for? Can this student body manage the workload if they are accepted based on a potentially lowered bar? Do they come out less wealthy if they are expelled for poor grades? Would it even be possible for them to get kicked out or will grades simply become inflated and curriculum watered down to account for having accepted a student body that never took a rigorous standardized test for admission purposes. These tests help demonstrate capability. Does an increased focus on simply accepting student based on immutable characteristics lead to excellence?

Will wealthy parents, whose kids no longer get in to schools that use wealth, and mainly zip codes, as a means of denying students admission flock to other decent schools that don’t thereby increasing the caliber of those schools and creating bigger endowments for those schools?

There are so many questions that come out of this.

Nothing you should worry about - based upon your writing skills, your kids won't get in anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court DID NOT strike down Affirmative Action

Admission preferences for legacies, donors, employee families and special recommendations are still allowed

The Court struck down Affirmative Action For everyone except white people.

This will be a leopards eating faces moment for the litigants.

Again, this also had mainly impacted Asian folks, but you conveniently gloss over that fact. Pretty sad Harvard also ranked them so low on “personality” tests, but that’s another story altogether.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court DID NOT strike down Affirmative Action

Admission preferences for legacies, donors, employee families and special recommendations are still allowed

The Court struck down Affirmative Action For everyone except white people.

This will be a leopards eating faces moment for the litigants.

Again, this also had mainly impacted Asian folks, but you conveniently gloss over that fact. Pretty sad Harvard also ranked them so low on “personality” tests, but that’s another story altogether.

Having taught many college students, I understand this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These universities will just adjust there admissions criteria to eliminate the things that preference rich white, Asian, Latino applicants. They already eliminated standardized tests. They want a diverse class and they will figure out a way to get it.

Translation: they will water down criteria and let in a whole bunch of unqualified people who’ll fail out OR they’ll have to make curricula easier, bringing the education standards down for everyone. What a brilliant plan. We can all be equal when we are all equally mediocre to crappy.

This is what I was thinking as well. If Harvard begins using zip codes, possibly ends legacy admissions, is intent on letting in a diverse set of applicants by new means, such as zip codes, or other novel methods, are they getting the most qualified or are they just getting the student body makeup up they are looking for? Can this student body manage the workload if they are accepted based on a potentially lowered bar? Do they come out less wealthy if they are expelled for poor grades? Would it even be possible for them to get kicked out or will grades simply become inflated and curriculum watered down to account for having accepted a student body that never took a rigorous standardized test for admission purposes. These tests help demonstrate capability. Does an increased focus on simply accepting student based on immutable characteristics lead to excellence?

Will wealthy parents, whose kids no longer get in to schools that use wealth, and mainly zip codes, as a means of denying students admission flock to other decent schools that don’t thereby increasing the caliber of those schools and creating bigger endowments for those schools?

There are so many questions that come out of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IN MY eyes and God eys we are all the same color. why are we going to give someone more points because of their skin color?

Because society doesn’t have your eyes. Did your eyes see Charlottesville? Did your eyes see the modern white supremacy movement get legitimized by our former President? Your eyes seem to be pollyannish and willfully blind to broader problems in our society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IN MY eyes and God eys we are all the same color. why are we going to give someone more points because of their skin color?

Because in other people's eyes, skin color has been seen as a negative and it has put a ceiling on millions of Americans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These universities will just adjust there admissions criteria to eliminate the things that preference rich white, Asian, Latino applicants. They already eliminated standardized tests. They want a diverse class and they will figure out a way to get it.

Translation: they will water down criteria and let in a whole bunch of unqualified people who’ll fail out OR they’ll have to make curricula easier, bringing the education standards down for everyone. What a brilliant plan. We can all be equal when we are all equally mediocre to crappy.

This is what I was thinking as well. If Harvard begins using zip codes, possibly ends legacy admissions, is intent on letting in a diverse set of applicants by new means, such as zip codes, or other novel methods, are they getting the most qualified or are they just getting the student body makeup up they are looking for? Can this student body manage the workload if they are accepted based on a potentially lowered bar? Do they come out less wealthy if they are expelled for poor grades? Would it even be possible for them to get kicked out or will grades simply become inflated and curriculum watered down to account for having accepted a student body that never took a rigorous standardized test for admission purposes. These tests help demonstrate capability. Does an increased focus on simply accepting student based on immutable characteristics lead to excellence?

Will wealthy parents, whose kids no longer get in to schools that use wealth, and mainly zip codes, as a means of denying students admission flock to other decent schools that don’t thereby increasing the caliber of those schools and creating bigger endowments for those schools?

There are so many questions that come out of this.

Wow a lot to unpack here with code words. You make a lot of assumptions about people who live in a different place than you.

Unpack away.

I am not hiding anything nor is anything I said racist.

I am simply asking questions. It’s not forbidden to ask them nor should it be. And because of this ruling, and the noted desire to enroll a diverse student body in schools by any means needed to ensure a certain makeup or representation, it is not racist to discuss how that will work and potential outcomes.

There are also tons of studies showing that pushing kids into schools they could not normally get into without sufficiently demonstrating skills on standardized tests has led to a lot of financial loss on their part when they are ultimately expelled. However, I do think in this day and age you would see less expulsion for grades and potentially more watering down of academic standards to compensate.

I can point you to tons of articles showing where unqualified students were expelled and went into debt because they could not handle the work load. Again not being racist just noting things that the NYtimes, Atlantic etc have already covered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court DID NOT strike down Affirmative Action

Admission preferences for legacies, donors, employee families and special recommendations are still allowed

The Court struck down Affirmative Action For everyone except white people.

This will be a leopards eating faces moment for the litigants.

Again, this also had mainly impacted Asian folks, but you conveniently gloss over that fact. Pretty sad Harvard also ranked them so low on “personality” tests, but that’s another story altogether.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm one of those Democrats who is happy to see this ruling. I'd rather see affirmative action on the basis of socioeconomic status rather than race. It would probably get you to the same conclusion rather than giving preferential treatment to UMC and UC POCs.

It doesn't get you there. California has already proven that. As a black woman, I am devasted. How do you eliminate affirmative action when merit is not real. You have many black and latino students graduated from substandard schools and white kids going to high school with golf courses. SAT scores are based on income, not intelligence.

We haven't even come to terms with race in this country.

No, and we probably never will. Sorry, people are too concerned about their own and their kids' futures to willingly give up their own standing in this "dog-eat-dog" of a country. We kind of tried to help for a while. But rising inequality and the costs of securing a decent future since the 1980s in this meritocratic society has made us much less trusting, much more polarized and with fewer safety nets to fall back on. It's every person for himself even if we're starting from radically different starting points.

Yes, my primary goal in life is to maximize opportunities for my kids. No one should apologize for that.

I have an only child and put a lot of effort and money (tutors, SAT prep, essay writing assistance, etc.) into getting her into the well-regarded school that was her first choice. (Not to mention the many benefits of coming from an UMC family). Like you, I don't apologize for that, but I have emphasized to her many times that she is very lucky and had advantages that many others do not and that she should always remember that. I am grateful that her public Ivy has made an effort to recruit students who are the first in their family to go to college.