Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't SCOTUS already decided on the constitutionality of affirmative action? So glad taxpayer funds will be going to what's *really* important.

Yes screw little Johnny who got s 1600 SAT. he needs to give up his seat to Harvard because racism, right?

To little Jamal who also got a 1600? Maybe.

But you know that government can't tell Harvard who to admit, I hope.

That would be one thing but universities are giving preference to Jamal with a 1300 over mr white 1600.

Maybe Jamal with 1300 has a much more interesting back story to his life, has done a lot more admirable things, is a much better writer, a more talented inventor, won more awards, is a kinder person than Johnny who took 5 prep courses to get his perfect score but has never been out of his little cocoon of privilege and who obviously had help writing his essay.

I know which candidate I'd prefer.

DP. But you're just making up a sympathetic story. Johnny could be the one with the "interesting back story," not Jamal. AA isn't based on who possesses a certain back story; it's based on who possesses a certain skin color.

So, are you on an admissions committee and are telling us a particular story about particular candidates?

Admissions committees don't just look at skin color. They look at the whole package. And yes, non-academic factors come into play. I'm a white person who got into an Ivy League school with that 1300 SAT score and you know what I am almost certain put me over in the yes pile? The fact that I was from a poor rural midwestern area from where they rarely received applications. An admissions officer as much told me so. I probably prevented a Connecticut Johnny with his 1600 SAT score from getting in.

But he probably got in elsewhere so i don't feel so bad about it.

I don't think anyone remotely suggested that Admissions committees ONLY look at skin color.

From what I've read on this thread it seems people are suggesting admissions committees shouldn't be able to consider race at all. Maybe they shouldn't be able to consider any other non-academic factors at all. I'm sure that would make for a great class makeup. Maybe they should just take all the highest SAT scorers, put their name in a bag, and pull out names at random. Because of course SAT is the only indicator of a good college student.

Not a bad idea. I would include HS GPA though.

Which, of course, even in combination are not the only indicators of college success. The fact is that even the top schools want students who aren't "just" getting amazing grades and do well on the SAT; they want students who have varied backgrounds and experiences and who demonstrate leadership and other capabilities. That's not something that just looking at the SAT will give you.

And last time I checked, schools weren't being over run with black kids. Or latino kids. Or any other ethnic minority to the disadvantage of white people. So Trump and his gang of clowns focusing "fixing" a bogus issue - a non issue - just to win points with his bigoted base.

Anonymous wrote:I am not even white and I agree with this policy. There is no reason to discriminate against a qualified white student

Please educate yourself. Affirmative action doesn't discriminate against white people. As a white person myself I know this.

This is pure and simple race-baiting nonsense that appeals to Trump's base, most of whom aren't going to college but who hold this belief that what keeps them from going is black people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not even white and I agree with this policy. There is no reason to discriminate against a qualified white student

Tons of qualified students, white or black or Asian, don't get admitted to schools because 1) too many qualified students apply for the number of slots available and 2) schools decide what kind of class make up they want. 10000 applicants with 1600 SAT scores for 500 slots? They have to pick somehow and they look at lots of factors to make it an interesting group.

Have you never been on a selection committee for anything?

DP. But they shouldn't be racist about it.

They're not.

Favoring blacks over whites isn't racist?

Merriam Webster: racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

A university deciding it wants a diverse incoming class -- diverse in terms of race, class, gender, where people come from -- is not included in the dictionary definition of racism.

Yes it is.

Then don't send your kid to a university that uses holistic admissions. Easy peasy.

But the Trump DOJ can't tell private universitities not to consider race. And publics can use it as a "plus factor"-- so you will have to cope.

So don't send you kid to a top college? Because they all use holistic admissions. Name a top college that just goes by the stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't SCOTUS already decided on the constitutionality of affirmative action? So glad taxpayer funds will be going to what's *really* important.

Yes screw little Johnny who got s 1600 SAT. he needs to give up his seat to Harvard because racism, right?

To little Jamal who also got a 1600? Maybe.

But you know that government can't tell Harvard who to admit, I hope.

That would be one thing but universities are giving preference to Jamal with a 1300 over mr white 1600.

Maybe Jamal with 1300 has a much more interesting back story to his life, has done a lot more admirable things, is a much better writer, a more talented inventor, won more awards, is a kinder person than Johnny who took 5 prep courses to get his perfect score but has never been out of his little cocoon of privilege and who obviously had help writing his essay.

I know which candidate I'd prefer.

DP. But you're just making up a sympathetic story. Johnny could be the one with the "interesting back story," not Jamal. AA isn't based on who possesses a certain back story; it's based on who possesses a certain skin color.

So, are you on an admissions committee and are telling us a particular story about particular candidates?

Admissions committees don't just look at skin color. They look at the whole package. And yes, non-academic factors come into play. I'm a white person who got into an Ivy League school with that 1300 SAT score and you know what I am almost certain put me over in the yes pile? The fact that I was from a poor rural midwestern area from where they rarely received applications. An admissions officer as much told me so. I probably prevented a Connecticut Johnny with his 1600 SAT score from getting in.

But he probably got in elsewhere so i don't feel so bad about it.

I don't think anyone remotely suggested that Admissions committees ONLY look at skin color.

From what I've read on this thread it seems people are suggesting admissions committees shouldn't be able to consider race at all. Maybe they shouldn't be able to consider any other non-academic factors at all. I'm sure that would make for a great class makeup. Maybe they should just take all the highest SAT scorers, put their name in a bag, and pull out names at random. Because of course SAT is the only indicator of a good college student.

Not a bad idea. I would include HS GPA though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is truly stunning and saddening.

OP, your title should more accurately read "...anti-white male affirmative action policies". 16 pages in and no one seems to realize that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are in fact women, specifically white women. It is the main reason why women now out-number men on college campuses.

But sure let's all keep focusing on what Jamal is "taking from" Jim. SMH. Do Jim's parents realize that their DD Becky is a beneficiary of AA as well? Or are they too busy worrying about "reverse racism"?

Perhaps this explains why Becky voted for Trump et al. She's too concerned with keeping Jamal out to realize she's hurting herself.

I don't think Becky wants to keep Jamal out.

She wants Jamal's BBC too much (as black women know)

Poor Jim knows, too.

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action is a racist policy. It says here are our normal standards to get in SAT/ACT wise and GPA wise. However, since you are black or hispanic you do not need to meet the normal standards because you can't and so we allow you to come in with lower scores and GPAs. This is in effect telling minorities they are inferior to Whites because they do not need to have the same scores or grades. How many of these Affirmative action kids drop out after a semester or year as well cause they did not go to a place they truly fit in?

I don't know of any college that says: you need these specific test scores and GPA to be admitted.

Affirmative action is a racist policy. It says here are our normal standards to get in SAT/ACT wise and GPA wise. However, since you are black or hispanic you do not need to meet the normal standards because you can't and so we allow you to come in with lower scores and GPAs. This is in effect telling minorities they are inferior to Whites because they do not need to have the same scores or grades. How many of these Affirmative action kids drop out after a semester or year as well cause they did not go to a place they truly fit in?

Anonymous wrote:Could admissions be arranged to be proportionate and reflective of the total US population?

So you want to restrict Asian and Asian Americans to just 5% to 6% of slots at schools even they routinely outscore whites never mind Hispanics and blacks in academics? Not a very smart policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could admissions be arranged to be proportionate and reflective of the total US population?

So what are you saying? Since Jews make up 2% of the population! we should make sure we have no more than 2% of them I n med school or law school? You don't think that academic records and test scores should count for anything?

Aren't Jews considered "white?"

Modern genetic PCA proves otherwise.

https://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/the-uniqueness-of-ashkenazi-jewish-ancestry-is-important-for-health/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could admissions be arranged to be proportionate and reflective of the total US population?

So what are you saying? Since Jews make up 2% of the population! we should make sure we have no more than 2% of them I n med school or law school? You don't think that academic records and test scores should count for anything?

Aren't Jews considered "white?"

Ah! You would think so, but there was an entire thread devoted to this, and I was shocked by how many people said Jews were not white.

Signed,
A Jew who always thought she was white

Israeli Jews cringe massively when they hear Jews say they are white

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could admissions be arranged to be proportionate and reflective of the total US population?

So what are you saying? Since Jews make up 2% of the population! we should make sure we have no more than 2% of them I n med school or law school? You don't think that academic records and test scores should count for anything?

Aren't Jews considered "white?"

Ah! You would think so, but there was an entire thread devoted to this, and I was shocked by how many people said Jews were not white.

Signed,
A Jew who always thought she was white

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could admissions be arranged to be proportionate and reflective of the total US population?

So what are you saying? Since Jews make up 2% of the population! we should make sure we have no more than 2% of them I n med school or law school? You don't think that academic records and test scores should count for anything?

Aren't Jews considered "white?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is truly stunning and saddening.

OP, your title should more accurately read "...anti-white male affirmative action policies". 16 pages in and no one seems to realize that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are in fact women, specifically white women. It is the main reason why women now out-number men on college campuses.

But sure let's all keep focusing on what Jamal is "taking from" Jim. SMH. Do Jim's parents realize that their DD Becky is a beneficiary of AA as well? Or are they too busy worrying about "reverse racism"?

Perhaps this explains why Becky voted for Trump et al. She's too concerned with keeping Jamal out to realize she's hurting herself.

The idea that white women are the main beneficiaries of AA is a very popular myth these days. I hear people say it a lot, but I rarely see it backed up with evidence. Maybe it depends on what definition of AA we are using? If white women are the primary beneficiaries of AA, then how much is it really helping the African Americans for whom it is apparently so important?

Affirmative action is not a HARD FORMULA applied every time to every situation every year. There are no hard and fast rules and it changes its shape ever so slightly based on the application pool, scores etc. And it doesn't prefer anyone over the other based on race or gender using a hard formula either. But overall affirmative action tries to create a pool that reflects America without overly favoring one factor alone. If it is purely admission test scores the top schools should look over 50% asian BUT it doesn't. If it is purely based on sports achievement it would have fewer asians and so forth.

I recognize that AA can have many different meanings to many different people. But I have a feeling Trump is specifically talking about race-based preferences.

What do you mean "AA can have have many different meaning to many different people"? It is not different to different people. The admission rate can be different for different groups based on how AA is applied. Trump/Bannon/Miller/Sessions are all in this together to create wedge issue to divide white people from non-whites and get them to voting for him.

As a matter of fact, there is quite a debate -- even on mainstream media before the yesterday's announcement -- among academics /legal scholars as to whether there may be different outcomes reached under Constitutional analysis for different types of AA. Different types of classifications are scrutinized by different standards under the equal protection and due processes clauses. The rub is not in the application of admissions rates, but in differences in the application of admissions criteria to achieve potentially pre-determined rates. It is most unfortunate that Trump is the one to bring this up because of his history and the blatant political reasons he has for doing so, but it is a topic worthy of thoughtful, serious dialogue just as much as other issues that concern race in this country (police, incarceration, housing, poverty, etc.) Whether the country can have a serious dialogue about these subjects when the current administration starts the conversation is questionable -- we begin with too much baggage that will question one another's motives. I had hoped that Barak Obama in his second term would have returned to the subject which he commented on briefly early on, but he did not. My own view is that at the end of the day whether or not AA based solely on race for African Americans was justified as a remedy for long term discrimination when it began back in the 1960s, it cannot be an indefinite part of American Society. Ultimately, America's solution to upward mobility of minority groups must be based on understanding, social interaction, primary/secondary education, etc., and the legal framework should be based on prohibiting discrimination. We have seen all over college campuses the past few years African America students telling us they feel left out or that they are perceived as not belonging on campus or as having not earned their place there. That will never end as long as pure racial affirmative action continues -- it simply cannot. Diversity -- the intellectual successor to affirmative action -- has merit, but the trick is in the application /execution. Proponents are quick to quote studies showing better decision making in more diverse groups; but I am not sure any of them say that is so unless all other things are equal. A diverse group of poor engineering students are less likely to build a safer building than less diverse group strong engineering students, even if theoretically a diverse group of strong engineering students will come up with a better plan than a less diverse group of strong students (I am granting the premise here although I am sure the studies must be more nuanced). It is a complicated subject worthy of serious discussion, not quips.

Anonymous wrote:How about merit based admission? Does that work?

See the MIT vs Cal Tech Admissions a few pages back (similarly ranked Engineering schools. MIT considers race, Cal Tech cannot).

Many, many more Asians. Many fewer whites and AAs.

So, how do you define "work"?

Does it result in different demographics? Yes.

Do Asians think it works? Absolutely.

Is your white kid more likely to get admitted? Nope.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is truly stunning and saddening.

OP, your title should more accurately read "...anti-white male affirmative action policies". 16 pages in and no one seems to realize that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are in fact women, specifically white women. It is the main reason why women now out-number men on college campuses.

But sure let's all keep focusing on what Jamal is "taking from" Jim. SMH. Do Jim's parents realize that their DD Becky is a beneficiary of AA as well? Or are they too busy worrying about "reverse racism"?

Perhaps this explains why Becky voted for Trump et al. She's too concerned with keeping Jamal out to realize she's hurting herself.

I don't think Becky wants to keep Jamal out.

She wants Jamal's BBC too much (as black women know)