Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Nope. I taught first grade. Kids arrive at elementary school with profound differences. The answer is birth to age five, and more probably birth to age three.

You're too far in the future about about 3 years. Try -50 years from conception to third trimester. THese kids are born stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

To be contrary. Men have made a mess of things so I don’t mind women having more power.

The dating market place is global, and maybe we need to be having less children to save the earth.

Incels will always be there and proliferate. Better to give women power to squash these maggots.

A lot of boys with special needs are at high risk for becoming incels. It’s one of my deepest fears for my special needs son. I think there’s a big difference between guys who aren’t marriage material though no fault of their own and MAGAs. Do you disagree?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of liberals on here and in NYT comments section starting to realize how counterproductive and unfair AA is. Including me. This will probably be the one thing the SC does I will agree with, and I am disappointed that the liberal justices don’t see the flaws in AA but continue with the excuse making. Maybe one of them will surprise us but let’s be real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think the colleges are gonna depend on historical red lining to find diverse neighborhoods

Uh, that would include the very white and very poor places like, the Appalachias and West Virginia. The article discusses how socioeconomic diversity will become a driving factor. However, the weakness of focusing on socioeconomics generally is that poor kids don’t even both to apply unless there is sustained and targeted outreach. A poor black kid is more likely to apply than a poor white kid because of affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Nope. I taught first grade. Kids arrive at elementary school with profound differences. The answer is birth to age five, and more probably birth to age three.

You're too far in the future about about 3 years. Try -50 years from conception to third trimester. THese kids are born stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Nope. I taught first grade. Kids arrive at elementary school with profound differences. The answer is birth to age five, and more probably birth to age three.

Anonymous wrote:(I reference back to some NYT or similar lever write-up on a West Coast private school college placement. They interviewed the mom of an African American boy who got into like 5 Ivies after taking a good number of APs, doing well, scoring mid 1500s on the SAT, and playing 🎷 in the school band (and possibly in state band).

"If not him, then whom?", the mom said, full of pride.

I could practically hear the groans of his classmate's parents.

And really, the question of why a boy attending a well regarded private school in one of the world's most expensive cities needs affirmative action remains unanswered.

Anonymous wrote:I hope we'll see schools following the UT model, and weighing class rank very heavily. When the same percentage of kids from Ballou and Sidwell get in, will the people who brought this complaint be happy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Guess what? Harvard will continue to use personality scores; they will just eliminate race and gender from the scoring criteria. And instead they will substitute things that are proxies for socioeconomic status: private vs. public school, zip code or voting precinct, wealth or education level of guardians, first generation, etc. The most elite schools will find ways to keep their student body diverse.

This. They just can't name it.