Anonymous wrote:Universities should get out of the business of social engineering and teach to all and charge everyone the sane

By all, do you mean the rich kids who can afford 80k a year?

Anonymous wrote:IF racial preferences are discontinued, Admissions Offices will have to make major changes in policies and procedures. That takes time. First class it will affect will be the graduating seniors of 2025.

2024 is just too soon.

If they take until 2025, they will be paying out their endowments in settlements for knowingly breaking the law in 2024

Yes, 2024 admissions cycle will be a circus. Admissions staff will have to do research to shape the incoming class appropriately.

Only fair way is for the Common App to just assign a number and schools decide based on the application number assigned to the student.

Student provides a link to the guidance counselor and teachers for recommendations.

No name mentioned in the recommendation or anywhere else, just decide based on the information provided in the application.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until Clarence Thomas resigns from the Supreme Court for being corrupt, no decision it renders where he is a deciding vote is legitimate.

+2.

How dare he step out of line.

How dare he accept hundreds of thousands in undeclared donations.

Not legally required to report. YOu know this. All the justices supplement their income (poor by comparison to law firm partners' salaries) this way. It's always been this way. The left just wants to tar and feather Thomas. Again

You know jack sh-- about ethics. Even if you don't HAVE to, for the regular fed, it is strongly encourage that you still do so (in any number of contexts) because of perceived bias, appearances, and optics. But you know this. And are excusing his lack of ethics, morals, and integrity on a technicality.

Actually I do know a lot about S.act ethics but you don’t want to hear that

Clearly you're not very good at it, then.

Anonymous wrote:Universities should get out of the business of social engineering and teach to all and charge everyone the sane

+1

Universities should get out of the business of social engineering and teach to all and charge everyone the sane

Anonymous wrote:IF racial preferences are discontinued, Admissions Offices will have to make major changes in policies and procedures. That takes time. First class it will affect will be the graduating seniors of 2025.

2024 is just too soon.

I don't think colleges can still implement AA for the graduating class of 2024 - they will end up getting sued.

Anonymous wrote:Until Clarence Thomas resigns from the Supreme Court for being corrupt, no decision it renders where he is a deciding vote is legitimate.

You know he's not doing that and there's nothing anyone can do about it. In the meantime, USSC's verdicts are expected to be followed by the affected parties. Not optional.

IF racial preferences are discontinued, Admissions Offices will have to make major changes in policies and procedures. That takes time. First class it will affect will be the graduating seniors of 2025.

2024 is just too soon.

Test Optional

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until Clarence Thomas resigns from the Supreme Court for being corrupt, no decision it renders where he is a deciding vote is legitimate.

+2.

How dare he step out of line.

How dare he accept hundreds of thousands in undeclared donations.

Not legally required to report. YOu know this. All the justices supplement their income (poor by comparison to law firm partners' salaries) this way. It's always been this way. The left just wants to tar and feather Thomas. Again

You know jack sh-- about ethics. Even if you don't HAVE to, for the regular fed, it is strongly encourage that you still do so (in any number of contexts) because of perceived bias, appearances, and optics. But you know this. And are excusing his lack of ethics, morals, and integrity on a technicality.

Actually I do know a lot about S.act ethics but you don’t want to hear that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until Clarence Thomas resigns from the Supreme Court for being corrupt, no decision it renders where he is a deciding vote is legitimate.

+2.

How dare he step out of line.

How dare he accept hundreds of thousands in undeclared donations.

Not legally required to report. YOu know this. All the justices supplement their income (poor by comparison to law firm partners' salaries) this way. It's always been this way. The left just wants to tar and feather Thomas. Again

You know jack sh-- about ethics. Even if you don't HAVE to, for the regular fed, it is strongly encourage that you still do so (in any number of contexts) because of perceived bias, appearances, and optics. But you know this. And are excusing his lack of ethics, morals, and integrity on a technicality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until Clarence Thomas resigns from the Supreme Court for being corrupt, no decision it renders where he is a deciding vote is legitimate.

+2.

How dare he step out of line.

How dare he accept hundreds of thousands in undeclared donations.

Not legally required to report. YOu know this. All the justices supplement their income (poor by comparison to law firm partners' salaries) this way. It's always been this way. The left just wants to tar and feather Thomas. Again

DP. Maybe not legal, but law scholars agree he broke the ethics in terms of reporting. The extravagant trips are debatable (though, c'mon, man, if my husband has to pay out of pocket for a guest lecturer's lunch at his govt job because of ethics concerns, there is really no excuse for this -- you know better), but the real estate transaction and payment for his ward were clear violations.

As to the person who cited Sotomayor, yes she did not recuse herself, but interesting that you failed to note that Gorsuch was in the exact same position. How did you miss that! Both, unlike Thomas, Gorsuch and Sotomayor declared their involvement with the publisher. Gorsuch also sold property to a person who's company had business before the Court and did not recuse himself. You missed that one too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until Clarence Thomas resigns from the Supreme Court for being corrupt, no decision it renders where he is a deciding vote is legitimate.

+2.

How dare he step out of line.

How dare he accept hundreds of thousands in undeclared donations.

Not legally required to report. YOu know this. All the justices supplement their income (poor by comparison to law firm partners' salaries) this way. It's always been this way. The left just wants to tar and feather Thomas. Again

It got banned in nine states already. The road map to do admissions without it is already there. More schools will use it.

Nine states in the United States have banned race-based affirmative action: California (1996), Washington (1998, rescinded 2022), Florida (1999), Michigan (2006), Nebraska (2008), Arizona (2010), New Hampshire (2012), Oklahoma (2012), and Idaho (2020).