Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5-4 vote, anyone’s guess on the result.

You are wrong. One Justice self recused.

Why did she recuse? That was naive.

Because unlike Clarence Thomas, she has a moral compass and a strong sense of ethics. Thomas has a seditious, conspiracy theorist in his wife Ginnie and like her, lacks any moral compass.

I am sure she has a moral compass, but let’s also be clear that her recusal will not impact the outcome.

It won't. They will eliminate AA. But they won't eliminate diversity at Harvard.

Some of the justices may claim to not know the meaning of diversity. (BS any SCJ would not know the meaning of diversity) but Harvard knows what it is and gives it significant educational value. So they will find a way to honor that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upthread it was commented that Asians are admitted at 3x their percentage of the population so there is presumably no discrimination. If this were true, Asians would be quite a bit higher as their objective scores are much higher than other races. Also, SAT scores are not that great of a gauge for many top unis. These kids that are admitted due to merit are presenting AIME or USAMO type scores. Anecdotally, it seems whites have a tougher time with admissions due to the participation of white kids in athletics. An unhooked, non-legacy white male has a very tough time at top unis given that whites are more likely to be legacies and/or athletes in rowing, squash, football, etc.

Asians are overrepresented on elite college campuses. They aren't being discriminated against just because they are Asian.

In general they do well on standardized tests. That's just one aspect of holistic admissions and really isn't " merit" if you come out of a culture of test mills and incessant test prep ( country wide tests happen across Asian countries). The top schools just don't want one dimensional bookworms. The SFFA looked at what Asians scored lowest in and used that as a claim of discrimination. Lower courts didn't find any discrimination.

The only difference is that there's now a conservative Court that will overturn established precedent. The facts haven't changed. Asians are being used under the "model minority" myth by whites to keep URM numbers low. Millions of dollars of dark money from conservative groups are funding this effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

But that are the scores of the applicants. What are the verbal SAT, math SAT, and GPA of the admitted students?

Why does that matter. Harvard would not be able to fill its seats based merely on a formula on "objective" scores like SAT scores or GPA. If they only considered perfect GPA or perfect SAT scores or whatever, they would still have to choose between applicants to fill their class. And they, as a private institution, should be able to decide that these scores are not what they are looking for in a student body. They have determined that their formula for selecting Harvard students tries to suss out potential to make an impact in some way or the other. They may be wrong. And if they are wrong, their brand value will go down. Let the market determine if their strategy is successful or not.

It matters because Harvard admitted students with very low scores in the name of R

They could admit ALL people with low scores! They have no obligation to take the highest scores and there are many reasons why they might not choose the highest scorers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.

"Of 35,000 applicants competing for 1,600 spots in the class of 2019, 2,700 had perfect verbal SAT scores; 3,400 had perfect math SAT scores; more than 8,000 had perfect GPAs."

From the facts in the actual case. Now what?

Anonymous wrote:No one asked me…but I think private colleges can do whatever they want, but public colleges should be merit only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5-4 vote, anyone’s guess on the result.

You are wrong. One Justice self recused.

Why did she recuse? That was naive.

Because unlike Clarence Thomas, she has a moral compass and a strong sense of ethics. Thomas has a seditious, conspiracy theorist in his wife Ginnie and like her, lacks any moral compass.

I am sure she has a moral compass, but let’s also be clear that her recusal will not impact the outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upthread it was commented that Asians are admitted at 3x their percentage of the population so there is presumably no discrimination. If this were true, Asians would be quite a bit higher as their objective scores are much higher than other races. Also, SAT scores are not that great of a gauge for many top unis. These kids that are admitted due to merit are presenting AIME or USAMO type scores. Anecdotally, it seems whites have a tougher time with admissions due to the participation of white kids in athletics. An unhooked, non-legacy white male has a very tough time at top unis given that whites are more likely to be legacies and/or athletes in rowing, squash, football, etc.

Asians are overrepresented on elite college campuses. They aren't being discriminated against just because they are Asian.

In general they do well on standardized tests. That's just one aspect of holistic admissions and really isn't " merit" if you come out of a culture of test mills and incessant test prep ( country wide tests happen across Asian countries). The top schools just don't want one dimensional bookworms. The SFFA looked at what Asians scored lowest in and used that as a claim of discrimination. Lower courts didn't find any discrimination.

The only difference is that there's now a conservative Court that will overturn established precedent. The facts haven't changed. Asians are being used under the "model minority" myth by whites to keep URM numbers low. Millions of dollars of dark money from conservative groups are funding this effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5-4 vote, anyone’s guess on the result.

You are wrong. One Justice self recused.

Why did she recuse? That was naive.

Because unlike Clarence Thomas, she has a moral compass and a strong sense of ethics. Thomas has a seditious, conspiracy theorist in his wife Ginnie and like her, lacks any moral compass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5-4 vote, anyone’s guess on the result.

You are wrong. One Justice self recused.

Why did she recuse? That was naive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5-4 vote, anyone’s guess on the result.

You are wrong. One Justice self recused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if a kid mentions their race or references it in an essay, what is the "fair admission" guy saying? That AOs can't use the essay?

That was one of the questions asked by (I think) Justice Jackson. There was no direct answer.

Eventually agreed that it is probably ok in that context, since an Asian student could also reference in their essay eg. discrimination that they may also have faced growing up.

I heard Jackson ask whether if you have 2 kids, one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and gone to UNC for 5 generations, and one whose family has lived in NC for 5 generations and could not go to UNC for 5 generations because of slavery, could they each say it was important to them to go to UNC for those reasons and could UNC consider each of those stories as factors and the plaintiffs' lawyer basically said UNC could consider the first and not the second (though he did say UNC could refuse to consider the first, and could consider first gen or low SES students).

Good example. Lets say that you have 2 kids. Once the child of African American physicians, the other the child of SWVA coal miners. Currently the African American child gets the admissions bump. Maybe looking at SES is a better way to give children of less parents a leg up than race because

Wouldn't the 2nd get a bump, too? Possibly 1st gen, geographic diversity, SES diversity, underprivileged area.

because the race bump is bigger and there are only so many seats to go around

Huh? How do you know the race piece is a bigger factor that first gen/low income? Was that published somewhere?

Be know that Harvard had quotas for black students and that there were no mention of quotas for first gen. Schools could make their rubrics public and dispel these fears, but they never will

Anonymous wrote:Higher education shoud be mainly for acedemic merit and must be color blind.