Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF slavery has to do with admission to colleges for kids born in the 21st century.

I know you wouldn't know. Enjoy your ignorance.

Yea right some kids born in 2005 should be sacrificed for your kids because of slavery.

Racial policies in college admission have nothing to do with slavery, reparations or guilt.

Racial policies in college admissions exist so colleges can build the classes THEY WANT based on criteria THEY SELECT. End period.

Which they are free to do with any criteria as long as they don't break the law. And yes that means they can take an athlete with lower SAT scores, or a talented singer, or a civic leader, or the son of a donor, or yes, someone of an under-represented race.

Don't take my word for it. Ask one college administrator, then another. Just f-king ask them why they have the policy. They'll tell you, in detail. But you won't ask them, because you don't want the answer.

All races benefit from this policy where they are under-represented. This includes asians at top LACs and whites at Howard. You people don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand and you don't want to. You just want to talk about the lucky minorities and how they are oppressing you. It is pathetic.

These points remain mostly ignored because they do not comport with embraced narratives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the harm done if someone is denied admission to Harvard (or wherever) and has to attend their well-chosen 'safety'?

There is none.

Anyone who's taken a serious look at college outcomes has found definitively that it's the individual that matters, not the college they attend.

Let Affirmative Action fall. There's nothing in the Constitution that says colleges have to admit students based on test scores and GPAs. Harvard can continue to admit exactly the same students because they want that wide diversity that contributes strongly to their education being so spectacular.

The top students at Harvard's safeties, those who have the ability but weren't admitted for whatever reason, will go on to be just as successful as they would have been if they had a Harvard degree.

Yup test is optional already. Some in fact went test blind. Make GPA optional or whatever
Racial discrimination is unconstitutional.
So that's one thing to avoid for sure.

Let the kids play by the rules fairly and choose.
Pretty interesting to see after 10 20 30 50 years later.
Hope we sre still competitive against other countries.

We will still be just as competitive because Boston College, Tufts, BU, Wellesley, Brandeis, etc. are just as capable as Harvard of preparing top students for their careers.

BTW if you are PP, one major thing you are still missing after 65 pages is that it was not just Tests & GPA.
The data indicates Asians were also strong in Activities, Leadership, Awards, etc. even in the person-to-person interviews.

So EC blind as well?
They were keep moving the goalposts, and now about to say hey kids there are no goalposts.

Well whatever you do, make the rules clear so that kids can play it by the rules.
This is fundamentally very important thing for the society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF slavery has to do with admission to colleges for kids born in the 21st century.

I know you wouldn't know. Enjoy your ignorance.

Yea right some kids born in 2005 should be sacrificed for your kids because of slavery.

Racial policies in college admission have nothing to do with slavery, reparations or guilt.

Racial policies in college admissions exist so colleges can build the classes THEY WANT based on criteria THEY SELECT. End period.

Which they are free to do with any criteria as long as they don't break the law. And yes that means they can take an athlete with lower SAT scores, or a talented singer, or a civic leader, or the son of a donor, or yes, someone of an under-represented race.

Don't take my word for it. Ask one college administrator, then another. Just f-king ask them why they have the policy. They'll tell you, in detail. But you won't ask them, because you don't want the answer.

All races benefit from this policy where they are under-represented. This includes asians at top LACs and whites at Howard. You people don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand and you don't want to. You just want to talk about the lucky minorities and how they are oppressing you. It is pathetic.

These points remain mostly ignored because they do not comport with embraced narratives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF slavery has to do with admission to colleges for kids born in the 21st century.

I know you wouldn't know. Enjoy your ignorance.

Yea right some kids born in 2005 should be sacrificed for your kids because of slavery.

Racial policies in college admission have nothing to do with slavery, reparations or guilt.

Racial policies in college admissions exist so colleges can build the classes THEY WANT based on criteria THEY SELECT. End period.

Which they are free to do with any criteria as long as they don't break the law. And yes that means they can take an athlete with lower SAT scores, or a talented singer, or a civic leader, or the son of a donor, or yes, someone of an under-represented race.

Don't take my word for it. Ask one college administrator, then another. Just f-king ask them why they have the policy. They'll tell you, in detail. But you won't ask them, because you don't want the answer.

All races benefit from this policy where they are under-represented. This includes asians at top LACs and whites at Howard. You people don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand and you don't want to. You just want to talk about the lucky minorities and how they are oppressing you. It is pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why no diversity points of athletes?

Its a serious question. Unless AA kids wont play squash or Asian kids won't get on ski team, how younger ones get to see representation?

Don’t be racist. There are Asian kids in sports.

Which ones?

Soccer, golf, skating, archery, etc
Asian countries are pretty good in Olympics(check out last medal list), so Asian kids are probably stong in those sports.

Here are the last Olympics rank by total medals.

Winter: https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/beijing-2022/medals

#8 Japan
#11 China
#14 S.Korea

Summer: https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/tokyo-2020/medals

#2 China
#5 Japan
#15 S.Korea

So Asians are good in sports?
Seriously at least for the countries like S.Korea and Japan, sports were treated like soemting you do when you fail or not good in academics back then like 60s 70s 80s., and mutually exclusive thing. It has changed a lot like last 20-30 years, and they like sports and let their kids play sports.

Are these Asian Olympians also playing sports at Harvard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why no diversity points of athletes?

Its a serious question. Unless AA kids wont play squash or Asian kids won't get on ski team, how younger ones get to see representation?

Don’t be racist. There are Asian kids in sports.

Which ones?

Soccer, golf, skating, archery, etc
Asian countries are pretty good in Olympics(check out last medal list), so Asian kids are probably stong in those sports.

Here are the last Olympics rank by total medals.

Winter: https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/beijing-2022/medals

#8 Japan
#11 China
#14 S.Korea

Summer: https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/tokyo-2020/medals

#2 China
#5 Japan
#15 S.Korea

So Asians are good in sports?
Seriously at least for the countries like S.Korea and Japan, sports were treated like soemting you do when you fail or not good in academics back then like 60s 70s 80s., and mutually exclusive thing. It has changed a lot like last 20-30 years, and they like sports and let their kids play sports.

Are these Asian Olympians also playing sports at Harvard?

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:

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.

Except one means there will be nearly no balance across those seats, excluding certain races, and the other will have a balance representative to the population. Tell me which is worse - not which is worse for any individual kid who is unlikely to get in anyway, but worse for the college and worse for the country.

Why do you think anything should be balanced against the racial breakdown of the country? I can’t imagine a more infantile and idiotic thought. Shall we mandate that every NFL team be 7% Asian? Or that 2% of artists performing at MSG be jewish? Do you event relaid show stupid you are?

You're too logical! I'd like to see the response to this but of course it won't happen. Victim mentality folks only want to choose the arguments benefitting their position.

Stop it, victim mentality is all the rage. We must all bow to the alter of race and atone for our privilege it's the new law, any other opinion is well...we know, it's the big R word, how dare you have an opposite opinion.

We get it. You are perfectly fine with the effects of systemic racism.

LOL, I'm black, successful and self made. You proved my point and brought out the old "R" word just as predicted. Funny thing is I bet you are white as a ball of cotton, thanks for being a Soldier for my people.

Good thing you are “atoning for your privilege”.

I earned my privilege with hard work, how bout you cotton?

I was given many advantages because of my race and SES. My grandfather went from a poor farming kid to professional after WWII with his GI Bill college degree. He went from shack to middle class neighborhood. All of his kids went to decent colleges and one Ivy. I grew up UMC and had it pretty easy. Parents each received modest inheritance. My well-educated mom taught me to read at an early age and I entered school reading at four. Went to great schools, funded by taxes of expensive homes in our 95% white township. Had multiple summer academic opportunities. I didn’t have to get a job, but I did have a cool internship via family friend. Spoke and wrote like an UMC kid. Great essays on my applications. Little bit of SAT prep. Went to top college & grad school. No loans. Had no problem getting interviews/offers. Etc.

Yes, I’m really freaking privileged. So are my kids. I don’t think I was entitled to attend those schools based on some innate abilities; I was just lucky. I’m ok if my kids don’t get all of the same opportunities. They are already ahead, they will be fine. I would love to see kids who weren’t so lucky get some of those golden opportunities that come so easily to others.

You have a sense of history and display humility. Rare on threads like this where smug Asian trolls are acting stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why no diversity points of athletes?

Its a serious question. Unless AA kids wont play squash or Asian kids won't get on ski team, how younger ones get to see representation?

Don’t be racist. There are Asian kids in sports.

Which ones?

Soccer, golf, skating, archery, etc
Asian countries are pretty good in Olympics(check out last medal list), so Asian kids are probably stong in those sports.

Here are the last Olympics rank by total medals.

Winter: https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/beijing-2022/medals

#8 Japan
#11 China
#14 S.Korea

Summer: https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/tokyo-2020/medals

#2 China
#5 Japan
#15 S.Korea

So Asians are good in sports?
Seriously at least for the countries like S.Korea and Japan, sports were treated like soemting you do when you fail or not good in academics back then like 60s 70s 80s., and mutually exclusive thing. It has changed a lot like last 20-30 years, and they like sports and let their kids play sports.

Anonymous wrote:Why no diversity points of athletes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why no diversity points of athletes?

Its a serious question. Unless AA kids wont play squash or Asian kids won't get on ski team, how younger ones get to see representation?

Don’t be racist. There are Asian kids in sports.

Which ones?

Soccer, golf, skating, archery, etc
Asian countries are pretty good in Olympics(check out last medal list), so Asian kids are probably stong in those sports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the harm done if someone is denied admission to Harvard (or wherever) and has to attend their well-chosen 'safety'?

There is none.

Anyone who's taken a serious look at college outcomes has found definitively that it's the individual that matters, not the college they attend.

Let Affirmative Action fall. There's nothing in the Constitution that says colleges have to admit students based on test scores and GPAs. Harvard can continue to admit exactly the same students because they want that wide diversity that contributes strongly to their education being so spectacular.

The top students at Harvard's safeties, those who have the ability but weren't admitted for whatever reason, will go on to be just as successful as they would have been if they had a Harvard degree.

Yup test is optional already. Some in fact went test blind. Make GPA optional or whatever
Racial discrimination is unconstitutional.
So that's one thing to avoid for sure.

Let the kids play by the rules fairly and choose.
Pretty interesting to see after 10 20 30 50 years later.
Hope we sre still competitive against other countries.

We will still be just as competitive because Boston College, Tufts, BU, Wellesley, Brandeis, etc. are just as capable as Harvard of preparing top students for their careers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the harm done if someone is denied admission to Harvard (or wherever) and has to attend their well-chosen 'safety'?

There is none.

Anyone who's taken a serious look at college outcomes has found definitively that it's the individual that matters, not the college they attend.

Let Affirmative Action fall. There's nothing in the Constitution that says colleges have to admit students based on test scores and GPAs. Harvard can continue to admit exactly the same students because they want that wide diversity that contributes strongly to their education being so spectacular.

The top students at Harvard's safeties, those who have the ability but weren't admitted for whatever reason, will go on to be just as successful as they would have been if they had a Harvard degree.

Yup test is optional already. Some in fact went test blind. Make GPA optional or whatever
Racial discrimination is unconstitutional.
So that's one thing to avoid for sure.

Let the kids play by the rules fairly and choose.
Pretty interesting to see after 10 20 30 50 years later.
Hope we sre still competitive against other countries.

We will still be just as competitive because Boston College, Tufts, BU, Wellesley, Brandeis, etc. are just as capable as Harvard of preparing top students for their careers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad that blacks are fighting to be treated like children and given extra points on standard sized tests so they can gain admission to top colleges. Why not just earn admission like everybody else?

It’s not “blacks”. It’s people who realize that underrepresented minority groups face extra challenges from the start.

Thats Asians!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad that blacks are fighting to be treated like children and given extra points on standard sized tests so they can gain admission to top colleges. Why not just earn admission like everybody else?

It’s not “blacks”. It’s people who realize that underrepresented minority groups face extra challenges from the start.

Anonymous wrote:To get back on a reasonable track, what did people think about the arguments proffered by the military?