Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?

OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.

Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.

If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.

In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.

DP. Oh, please. You are extrapolating and attributing things PP never said. Also, I think you really do support Trump because he is pandering to your fears and bias.

PP is on the money.

You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison.
--Agreed

Are you agreeing with yourself?
I don't support trump but I doubt you will believe me. There is a category of liberal that believes that anyone that disagrees with them on pretty much anything must support trump. At some point I might start to believe you but I do not yet.

I don't think trump really cares that much about asians but he likes the fact that harvard actually discriminated against asians and intends to use that as a reason to accuse them of all sorts of other things. I mean if they were racist against asians, they are probably anti-semitic too, After all the hatred for model minorities is strongest against the jews. Harvard brought this on itself.

Trump will pay no political price for punishing racist elitist universities.

Agreeing w/PP. You clearly didn't read (or bother to comprehend) what I posted. You also seem to have no 1st person knowledge of these schools' admissions processes or campuses. You just buy into the propaganda that feeds into your fear/ego, just like the lemming Trump wants you to be. You like Trump well enough when he supports your bias.

I am familiar with all the datta that came out of the SFFA v Harvard lawsuit. It is clear that they discriminated against asians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.

BS absolute BS you don't geShe's.

DP


write history. Jan 6th 141 members of the Capital Police were attacked. They would have raped women in Congress, they hung gallows. This was an attack on the US government a coup no mental gymnastics will there be anything but. There is no reality there are alternate electors that BS by John Eastman, Hawley & Cruz is utter BS.

ROFLMAO

They would have done what to the women in congress?

Like I said, it was treason but no more violent than the BLM riots.

DP. Interesting tack. BLM protests were mostly peaceful in intent with violence frequently coming from police/national guard (like Trump's Bible photo opp sweep). I attended on BLM Plaza.
There was some opportunistic looting in Minneapolis, and vandalism in Portland, but nothing like the deaths from the assault on the Capitol.

Also BLM were protesting injustice. At the Capitol, insurrectionists were trying to.overthrow and physically block election results. And, I don't know about rapes, but they did have a gallows and menace violence. There's a reason Josh Hawley was on the run from these "good people" (check out the videos of that).

The claim was about rape. That is fukn ridiculous and you should call out bullshit on your side because if you don't they keep on with the bullshit and those ridiculous statements become the headline.

25 people died from the BLM riots. How many people died on january 6th? What injustice warranted those 25 deaths?

Of course, January 6th was treason. It was violent. But so were the BLM riots. In fact those riots were a good bit more violent. The BLM riots are just as inexcusable as the january 6th violence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

You know Stephen Miller is Jewish right?

It wasn't the Republicans calling Asians racist for fighting against anti Asian racism.

Clearly not a very good one.

Anonymous wrote:Federal government can and should terminate Harvard's participation in federal student financial aid programs including loans, grants etc. Let racist Harvard pay for ALL student aid for their under and graduate students. I don’t think Harvard can withstand that one.

Didn't they announce a while back that it would be tuition-free for all students under a certain household income beginning fall 2025?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s extortion. No previous White House has ever tried to use the power of the state to steer the nation’s preeminent institutions of higher learning in an ideological direction favored by the president.

“U.S. research universities, and the federal funding that supports them, are one major reason Americans have collected more Nobel Prizes than citizens of any other country. They also help make the United States the world’s innovation engine and the top destination for foreign students. No other country is as adept at converting raw human talent and ideas into cutting-edge products. Research universities anchor innovation clusters such as Silicon Valley, which in turn fuel the country’s economic growth.”

Nearly a month ago, for example, Columbia University agreed to most of the White House’s demands in the hopes that Trump and his team would restore $400 million in federal funding. Not only were those hopes soon dashed — Columbia didn’t get its money back — but the administration soon after proposed installing oversight personnel to help run the school in ways that would make the president happy.

In effect, the White House responded to Columbia’s appeasement by trying in part to take over Columbia.

+100

People cheering for this are puppets. It’s the beginning of a fascist regime. They want to control all of the elite universities so there are no alternative ideas or push back. Much like firing all the IGs.

Obama sent letters threatening universities to install DEI or lose funding. Full compliance.

Obama did not tell schools their federal funding depended on creating entire DEI programs, much less demand to pick students and faculty who shared his party’s “viewpoints.” If you mean trans kids getting to use the restroom that matched their identity, you can’t possibly think that was as consequential as reshaping the ideology of any entire university’s population, as the Harvard letter lays out. I’m all for diversity of thought, but the gov should not be in the business of evaluating what that looks like when it itself swings so dramatically from one election to the other.

Republicans are supposed to favor small gov!

Forcing trans ideology on everyone is not really great either.

And Republicans never favored small government, they favor low taxes and no entitlements or social safety nets. Bootstraps and all that.

Not forcing ideology - enforcing respect for individual human beings, including those with whom you disagree.....Including different viewpoints - isn't that what the Trump argument is here complaining that universities are squashing conservative voices?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

Was it worth the civil unrest and chaos of the 1960s to stop legal discrimination against blacks?
Sure this isn't nearly as bad but it's still racial discrimination and it's certainly worth destroying harvard over.

I bet if you just lined up test scores and GPA, it wouldn't look as bad between men and women at caltech as the difference between blacks and asians at harvard.
I personally don't think we should have gender preferences either but the gap is not obscene

Here's another thing about places like caltech and mit and women. Do you notice anything they have in common?

Wow, talk about discrimination. You sure seem to be up for it when it suits you. The issue with what you perceive as Asian discrimination is cultural, not racial. It's the culture that generates the "Ivy recipe " of violin, robotics, math team, FBLA, golf/tennis etc. It’s about how the students appear in terms of achievements and interests, not race. Also, the constant ratcheting of intensity and achievement means that these kids may not have developed creative or communication skills. Who knows.

You think that not prioritizing students who excel at the recipe is "racist, " but are fins suggesting black students have lesser scores and are therefore less meritorious than Asian. How much prep did both sets of students do? How much enrichment? Hopkins CTY? Math boosted 3 years ahead to get into magnets only for math curriculum to be review because it was already addressed with private instruction? And who believes standard test are the end all be all of merit? Only the parents who invested in them.

Talk about discrimination. Sheesh.

No it was racial. The reason we know it was racial is because the harvard lawsuit exposed their admissions process. They gives students a score for their academics, their extracurriculars, for their athletics and for their personal qualities.

Asians beat out every other group in academics and extracurriculars, and athletics tend not to matter unless you are a recruited athlete.

But the scoring for personal qualities was color coded. Whites did better than asians, hispanics did better than whites and blacks did better than hispanics. The disparity in personal scores between asians and blacks was enormous, what made it seem even more suspicious was that the alumni interviewers that actually met the applicants did not register any meaningful difference between applicants of different races but the admissions committee that never met the applicants noted large differences that had statistically significant differences by race.

I don't know what generation you are but asians excel in every dimension. They deliberately avoid things like violin and tennis to avoid appearing too asian.

Finally, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of everything you would want to predict in a student.
This isn't the opinion of some anonymous internet poster. This is the conclusion of almost every study done on the subject.
This is the reason why almost every jurisdiction outside of the USA uses solely or primarily test scores tod etermine admission to college.

The only poeople who think test scores aren't that important are people with less academically gifted children or people who are so heavily invested in woke ideology that they cannot see straight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

??????
Charlottesville?
Jan 6?
Eating cats and dogs?
Vermin?
Poisoning the blood?
etc etc etc etc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s extortion. No previous White House has ever tried to use the power of the state to steer the nation’s preeminent institutions of higher learning in an ideological direction favored by the president.

“U.S. research universities, and the federal funding that supports them, are one major reason Americans have collected more Nobel Prizes than citizens of any other country. They also help make the United States the world’s innovation engine and the top destination for foreign students. No other country is as adept at converting raw human talent and ideas into cutting-edge products. Research universities anchor innovation clusters such as Silicon Valley, which in turn fuel the country’s economic growth.”

Nearly a month ago, for example, Columbia University agreed to most of the White House’s demands in the hopes that Trump and his team would restore $400 million in federal funding. Not only were those hopes soon dashed — Columbia didn’t get its money back — but the administration soon after proposed installing oversight personnel to help run the school in ways that would make the president happy.

In effect, the White House responded to Columbia’s appeasement by trying in part to take over Columbia.

+100

People cheering for this are puppets. It’s the beginning of a fascist regime. They want to control all of the elite universities so there are no alternative ideas or push back. Much like firing all the IGs.

Obama sent letters threatening universities to install DEI or lose funding. Full compliance.

It is the government's responsibility to uphold civil rights and non-discrimination laws. Call it "control" if you want - but it's controlling fairness.
The Trump administration's demands work against civil rights and are controlling ideology they agree with and eliminating opposing views. That is not appropriate government "control."
It isn't federal regulations or government policies that are to blame if students with more conservative views don't feel comfortable expressing those views on their campus, or similarly employees in a company. That's the result of the school and the company's chosen practices.
Is Trump going after Liberty University for being too conservative or too Christian?

Trump administration is demanding as one of several conditions that Harvard stop discriminating against Asians and Harvard said no. Very simple.

Not admitting a 100% Asian student body is not discrimination.
White people think their kids are discriminated against in favor of each Asian kid who gets admitted, or Black, or Latino.
As stated somewhere upthread, a school cannot admit every student who applies. Period. And test scores are not the sole criteria - nor should they be.
As you note, demanding "as one of several conditions." It's those "several conditions" that cross the line and puts Harvard in the right to say no.

Again, is the administration going to go after Liberty University or others that are right-biased?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?

OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.

Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.

If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.

In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.

DP. Oh, please. You are extrapolating and attributing things PP never said. Also, I think you really do support Trump because he is pandering to your fears and bias.

PP is on the money.

You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison.
--Agreed

I think you are confused about what's going on.

We deported a bunch of people to el salvador in part because venezuela would not take them.

Garcia is an illegal alien that has a court order prohibiting the government from deporting him to el salvador but they can deport him to any other country that will have him.

He can be deported, he just can't be deported to el salvador. If they had deported him to a prison inn guatemala, there would be no case.

You can experience a bit of schadenfreude at Harvard's troubles arising from their woke ideology and racial discrimination while also believing that trump is bad for the country.

Why are you defending harvard so hard? They were in fact racially discriminating against asians. They are in fact continuing to do so by their own estimates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

Was it worth the civil unrest and chaos of the 1960s to stop legal discrimination against blacks?
Sure this isn't nearly as bad but it's still racial discrimination and it's certainly worth destroying harvard over.

I bet if you just lined up test scores and GPA, it wouldn't look as bad between men and women at caltech as the difference between blacks and asians at harvard.
I personally don't think we should have gender preferences either but the gap is not obscene

Here's another thing about places like caltech and mit and women. Do you notice anything they have in common?

Wow, talk about discrimination. You sure seem to be up for it when it suits you. The issue with what you perceive as Asian discrimination is cultural, not racial. It's the culture that generates the "Ivy recipe " of violin, robotics, math team, FBLA, golf/tennis etc. It’s about how the students appear in terms of achievements and interests, not race. Also, the constant ratcheting of intensity and achievement means that these kids may not have developed creative or communication skills. Who knows.

You think that not prioritizing students who excel at the recipe is "racist, " but are fins suggesting black students have lesser scores and are therefore less meritorious than Asian. How much prep did both sets of students do? How much enrichment? Hopkins CTY? Math boosted 3 years ahead to get into magnets only for math curriculum to be review because it was already addressed with private instruction? And who believes standard test are the end all be all of merit? Only the parents who invested in them.

Talk about discrimination. Sheesh.

I remember when people were suspicious of Soviet Bloc athletes. They delivered incredible performances for decades but the rumors of performance enhancing drugs became a known fact. People stopped considering them solely on their stats and simply assumed they were juicing.

Admissions officers are comparing kids who just went high school against kids who went to high school + Hopkins CTY + Russian Math + Kumon + Mathnasium + etc.

All things being equal sometimes a kid with a 1500 from a barebones high school looks more impressive.

Many schools have shifted towards lifting kids from economically disadvantaged backgrounds because factoring in race is no longer allowed. I actually agree that race should not be a determining factor, but SES should be. However, this is still making some people angry because their kids are still not getting into Harvard.

Just shows how entitled some people think they are for a “top” school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

We don't have to agree on where to draw the line on racial discrimination, the constitution does that for us.

And gender discrimination? That's OK?

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread…..you can clearly distinguish the state educated posters from the private ones…

You can also clearly see the mommy’s whose kids did not get accepted to an Ivy League…..the hate and contempt for the elite academic institutions is incredible….

Don’t worry underachievers. In less than 4 years Trump is gone, and all of these attacks on universities will stop and the Make America Dumb Again movement will go away….

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

We don't have to agree on where to draw the line on racial discrimination, the constitution does that for us.

Obama and Biden administrations were relentless in using federal law to influence or outright dictate how universities were managed.

In 2011, the Obama administration discovered, in Title IX, a mandate for universities to police both sexual assault and sexual harassment (including potentially “unwanted” speech) according to federal standards that deprived students of due process.

That standard was used to suppress the speech of faculty, such as Northwestern professor Laura Kipnis, who in a Kafkaesque turn was the subject of a legal complaint by students under Title IX for writing an op-ed column criticizing the Obama view of Title IX. The Obama rules were later even weaponized in a lawsuit against Hillsdale College, which takes no federal funds. When Trump’s first education secretary, Betsy DeVos, repealed the Obama standard, the ACLU sued her to try to preserve the lever.

In 2016, the Obama administration again used Title IX to insist that colleges adopt transgender ideology and punish students and faculty who dissented from it. In 2021, the Biden administration went further, and sought to prevent even state colleges from following state laws that protected women’s sports from men. In 2022, it demanded that colleges police “hostile environment” speech even if the conduct in question occurs “outside [a school’s] education program or activity.” In 2023, it released a Title IX rule specifically focused on foisting transgender athletes into women’s sports.

Anonymous wrote:US Government should terminate Harvard's participation in federal student aid programs. Thy have tens of billions so they can pay their own students to indoctrinate not taxpayer funds. They will be begging to participate within 12 months.

Exactly.