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:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

That 1400 kid might also play the clarinet and tennis. Or have other talents the school is looking for that you, personally, don't value. We're never just going to have highest test score wins, without taking anything else into account. It's not the American way.

The Harvard data shows Asians applicants with higher test scores also have higher scores on ECs and Leadership overall.

Overall doesn't matter. There are specific slots that will be filled. I knew a girl in high school who went to Harvard to play softball. She was not very smart. But, she played softball well enough. No way she had a 1400 or 1590 on her SAT.

yea sounds very stupid.
1400 with Softball over 1500.
WTF

This needs to be fixed next - ALDC

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:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

That 1400 kid might also play the clarinet and tennis. Or have other talents the school is looking for that you, personally, don't value. We're never just going to have highest test score wins, without taking anything else into account. It's not the American way.

The Harvard data shows Asians applicants with higher test scores also have higher scores on ECs and Leadership overall.

Overall doesn't matter. There are specific slots that will be filled. I knew a girl in high school who went to Harvard to play softball. She was not very smart. But, she played softball well enough. No way she had a 1400 or 1590 on her SAT.

yea sounds very stupid.
1400 with Softball over 1500.
WTF

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:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

That 1400 kid might also play the clarinet and tennis. Or have other talents the school is looking for that you, personally, don't value. We're never just going to have highest test score wins, without taking anything else into account. It's not the American way.

The Harvard data shows Asians applicants with higher test scores also have higher scores on ECs and Leadership overall.

Overall doesn't matter. There are specific slots that will be filled. I knew a girl in high school who went to Harvard to play softball. She was not very smart. But, she played softball well enough. No way she had a 1400 or 1590 on her SAT.

yea sounds very stupid.
1400 with Softball over 1500.
WTF

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

That 1400 kid might also play the clarinet and tennis. Or have other talents the school is looking for that you, personally, don't value. We're never just going to have highest test score wins, without taking anything else into account. It's not the American way.

The Harvard data shows Asians applicants with higher test scores also have higher scores on ECs and Leadership overall.

Overall doesn't matter. There are specific slots that will be filled. I knew a girl in high school who went to Harvard to play softball. She was not very smart. But, she played softball well enough. No way she had a 1400 or 1590 on her SAT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

That 1400 kid might also play the clarinet and tennis. Or have other talents the school is looking for that you, personally, don't value. We're never just going to have highest test score wins, without taking anything else into account. It's not the American way.

The Harvard data shows Asians applicants with higher test scores also have higher scores on ECs and Leadership overall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

That 1400 kid might also play the clarinet and tennis. Or have other talents the school is looking for that you, personally, don't value. We're never just going to have highest test score wins, without taking anything else into account. It's not the American way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

That’s insane. What’s your basis for claiming that a 1400 kid and a 1590 kid are basically equivalent? Barring really strange personal factors, the 1590 kid is vastly more talented academically and it’s not even close. And how much time do you think admissions officers spend to evaluate the “intangibles” of a particular candidate relative to others? Not enough to allow a meaningful weighing. Holistic admissions is basically just a cover for demographic adjustments to the student body because expressly doing so is illegal. Everything else is just a rounding error.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

This 1000%! The 1590 kid does not deserve anything anymore than a strong 1400 candidate. FYI--there are plenty with 1590 that do make the cut, but not everyone for good reasons (and no it's not the color of their skin---it's everything else added up)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone calm down - satire

Website:
https://www.theonion.com/perfect-4-0-student-rejected-from-university-just-for-b-1850544909

Ig:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CtrLYqxMN0q/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

This is actually interesting.
These schools are saying they look at the whole person and characters like courage, kindness, etc..
I wonder the crime rate of Asian students relative to other races in like T25 school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Looks very much like racial discrimination against Asian students.

We'll see the outcome from the US Supreme Court.

If I was part of admissions committee and received the aggregate feedback of 2 LORs and guidance counselor ( from kid's own school!) and alumni interviewer about a given applicant, I'm not surprised that the personality score was low.

As the lower courts have ruled, this doesn't prove discrimination.

And...what in the heck does this have to do with affirmative action? Whites are being compared to Asians in the chart, not URMs.

?? why? Asian students are on par on LORs and have higher score on interview.

They were being nice, so only compared it to Whites.
Imagine comparing it to Blacks/Hispanics

The lower scores came from the applicant's own teachers and guidance counselor!

The alumni interviewer's score was low.

THREE relatively low scores from three different sources.

The admissions committee reviews thousands of applications: they are not going to meet most applications in person. Their scoring is based on the data received.

No discrimination.

Weak "evidence" and probably cherry picked.

You seem to have trouble reading data:



Alumni interviewer = much higher than white
Teacher rec1 = a bit higher than white
Teacher rec2 = a bit higher than white
Personal interviewer = a bit higher than white
Guidance counselor = a bit lower than white

AO = much lower than white


There is clearly racial discrimination going on.
WTF are you going on about?

So perhaps their essays were not as good/warm/fuzzy as the others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Looks very much like racial discrimination against Asian students.

We'll see the outcome from the US Supreme Court.

If I was part of admissions committee and received the aggregate feedback of 2 LORs and guidance counselor ( from kid's own school!) and alumni interviewer about a given applicant, I'm not surprised that the personality score was low.

As the lower courts have ruled, this doesn't prove discrimination.

And...what in the heck does this have to do with affirmative action? Whites are being compared to Asians in the chart, not URMs.

?? why? Asian students are on par on LORs and have higher score on interview.

They were being nice, so only compared it to Whites.
Imagine comparing it to Blacks/Hispanics

The lower scores came from the applicant's own teachers and guidance counselor!

The alumni interviewer's score was low.

THREE relatively low scores from three different sources.

The admissions committee reviews thousands of applications: they are not going to meet most applications in person. Their scoring is based on the data received.

No discrimination.

Weak "evidence" and probably cherry picked.

You seem to have trouble reading data:



Alumni interviewer = much higher than white
Teacher rec1 = a bit higher than white
Teacher rec2 = a bit higher than white
Personal interviewer = a bit higher than white
Guidance counselor = a bit lower than white

AO = much lower than white


There is clearly racial discrimination going on.
WTF are you going on about?

DP. This looks the profile of a grade grubber. High scores and boxes checked, but makes no extraordinary impression on people who deal with them day by day. Alumni interview is puff. We all know that, here we see it quantified. This is cherry picking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Looks very much like racial discrimination against Asian students.

We'll see the outcome from the US Supreme Court.

If I was part of admissions committee and received the aggregate feedback of 2 LORs and guidance counselor ( from kid's own school!) and alumni interviewer about a given applicant, I'm not surprised that the personality score was low.

As the lower courts have ruled, this doesn't prove discrimination.

And...what in the heck does this have to do with affirmative action? Whites are being compared to Asians in the chart, not URMs.

?? why? Asian students are on par on LORs and have higher score on interview.

They were being nice, so only compared it to Whites.
Imagine comparing it to Blacks/Hispanics

The lower scores came from the applicant's own teachers and guidance counselor!

The alumni interviewer's score was low.

THREE relatively low scores from three different sources.

The admissions committee reviews thousands of applications: they are not going to meet most applications in person. Their scoring is based on the data received.

No discrimination.

Weak "evidence" and probably cherry picked.

You seem to have trouble reading data:



Alumni interviewer = much higher than white
Teacher rec1 = a bit higher than white
Teacher rec2 = a bit higher than white
Personal interviewer = a bit higher than white
Guidance counselor = a bit lower than white

AO = much lower than white


There is clearly racial discrimination going on.
WTF are you going on about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is going nowhere. Those stats are run of the mill at those schools, regardless of ethnicity.

However 1450 kids get accepted with certain skin color or rich parents over 1590 kid because.... courage, kindness, and likability?

1450 is still 99th percentile. There's essentially no difference in their test-taking ability from someone with 1590. If all else was equal and the 1450 was significantly more courageous, kind and likeable, I'm not sure why you wouldn't choose them regardless of skin color.

I think the difference is big between 1450 and 1590. 1450 might be 99th percentile, but it's not good enough especially for those elite schools.
Now 1590 is what? like 99.99 percentile? Now we are talking.
We all know that courage, kindness, and likability score is bullshit.

They keep admitting them. They keep graduating. How is that even possible?

It's because the real threshold is 1400. Anything over that is perfectly fine. They can pull names from hats at that point.

that's the problem.
why pull names from hats when they can admit the 1590 kid who deserves more than the 1400 kid.

You are completely wrong and misunderstand this test and how it is used. It isn't "best score wins." It's "does the result show that this kid can handle college?" You aren't ranked by score. You get over the threshold, and it is enough for that small part of the application process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m so sick and tired of Asians complaining about unfairness in America. When I look around my UMC neighborhood, Asians seem to be doing quite well. I wonder how well American students would fare in Asian schools or American workers in Asian corporations. Something tells me that it would be FAR worse for Americans in Asia than it is for Asians in America.

Americans are treated very well in Asians countries.

Maybe things have changed over the years. I distinctly remember when Yu Ying sent a group of students to China as part of its curriculum, a little Black boy was openly teased by Chinese women demanding that he(the little Black boy) show his tail. Maybe your definition of “very well” differs from most people which witnessed that exchange. It was disgusting to say the very least. Or maybe you just mean white people are treated very well in Asian countries. Which says a lot about you PP.

Black Americans would feel very safe pretty much anywhere in the countries like Korea/Japan, and even in China.

Can you say the same thing for an Asian in the US?

Interesting article.

https://unbiasthenews.org/heard-but-not-seen-being-black-in-south-korea/#:~:text=The%20discrimination%20that%20Black%20people,is%20associated%20with%20unattractive%20qualities.

“Koreans are a non-white people who believe in white supremacy”

The discrimination that Black people experience in South Korea is exacerbated by a hierarchy based on centuries-old colorism, where milky white skin is valorized and darker skin is associated with unattractive qualities.

Yeah, but they think whites don't know their dirty little secrets.

Hines Ward, half black/half korean, received a hero's welcome in Korea. There are some half black/half korean entertainers in Korea who are quite popular.

Yes, the old Korea was very racist against blacks, but the younger generation aren't, just like white people.

Hines Ward and his mother had to flee Korea due to lack of acceptance. You left that part out. But how magnanimous that they accepted him after he found success, something that never would have happened if he stayed.

I think you did not read the bolded. I didn't leave anything out. There is more acceptance of half black half koreans in Korea today. How do I know.. I'm Korean American.

Oh. Today. But not when Ward was born. And you know that which is why you keep choosing your words carefully.

yes, we are talking about today.

Today, Harvard and the like are discriminating based on race. Today, younger Korean Americans are more accepting of black people.

Regardless of how Koreans, old or young, treat black people, it doesn't mean Harvard can discriminate against Asian Americans.

As the saying goes: "two wrongs don't make a right".

Harvard can't let everyone in, even if 5000 people had the exact same profile. How do you suggest they make decisions?