Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Tge whole scotus decision is bogus. Most in education lamented this decision. But, sure, some AOs may have been biased with the likeability aspect. That doesn't mean the institution is anti-Asian, especially against a group already well over represented at that institution. The URMs that get accused of "taking" spots are under represented at these institutions. That whole notion of taking spots and the supposition of "less qualified" just smack of bitter Bettyism. But the right wing lobbyists capitalized on that bitterness and entitlement with this case. This "win" "against" racism just further entrenches racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

You do realize that you can't avoid being sued by clever wordsmithery, right? All 'they' need is one sympathetic judge.

Obviously. One can get sued for just about anything. The post was countering the "litigation " point. The aggrieved will litigate. Colleges will have to defend.

An essay prompt like the one from Sarah Lawrence will likely pass muster.

Lawyer here: I doubt that. This question has zero finesse and pretty much explicitly does what Roberts cautioned against: using the essay as an end run around the decision. This is a “screw you Supreme Court, we are still doing racial balancing and you can’t stop us” kind of prompt. They are making their resistance to the ruling obvious and risk getting smacked down to make a point. Good lawyering would be to draft a facially neutral prompt about “adversity overcome” and note many examples of such adversity, which can include racial discrimination, poverty, personal loss, etc., which everyone will know, wink wink, nudge nudge, is the race essay. That’s where the top schools will land, I would expect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

You do realize that you can't avoid being sued by clever wordsmithery, right? All 'they' need is one sympathetic judge.

Obviously. One can get sued for just about anything. The post was countering the "litigation " point. The aggrieved will litigate. Colleges will have to defend.

An essay prompt like the one from Sarah Lawrence will likely pass muster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Where have you been? That was one of the foundational findings during the discovery process. And just because there are 'enough' Asians at Harvard, does not mean that Harvard didn't discriminate against them. That's like saying, I have one Black kid in college, what are they complaining about. And no, I don't give a rat's ass about there being more Asian kids as a % of the student population relative to the general population. That SHOULD NOT matter. There's no law that says it should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

You do realize that you can't avoid being sued by clever wordsmithery, right? All 'they' need is one sympathetic judge.

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny, I was just thinking what a fun essay this would be to write. The meta framing opens up the possibility of social science and legal discussion, plus philosophical pondering about the nature of identity.

Also, the legal appendices will be more fun. It will bring the voices and thoughts of the younger generation into the case.

not really, its a lot more narrowly framed with :

Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

+1 ironically, this scenario could also result in discrimination lawsuits by URMs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will result in lots of trauma essays and I’m a good ally essays.

My African American DS refuses to write a trauma essay in response to this type of question. Although he has been profiled by police and in stores, he is upper middle class and doesn't think it is appropriate to construct an essay around racial identity/ trauma or else you are low-income, something significant happened that negatively impacted his life, discrimination in an educational setting, attend an under-resourced school. etc.

As someone who works with children of color who are low income, thank you for your son’s wisdom, honesty, integrity, and kindness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

NP. URMs with high stats, however common or uncommon, are also likely to have this award. Will colleges be so afraid of litigation that they would reject a high scoring URM because this award is on the app but no trauma essay?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

That would be smart if it were true. But the opposite is happening. Colleges are going on the record in absolutely moronic ways. Talk about free discovery.

NP: Can you provide a few examples?

I’m working on something that will be published soon compiling some examples. I’m sure it’ll end up on DCUM eventually.

Are you a journalist?

I’m a lawyer, I’m just helping a journalist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

That would be smart if it were true. But the opposite is happening. Colleges are going on the record in absolutely moronic ways. Talk about free discovery.

NP: Can you provide a few examples?

I’m working on something that will be published soon compiling some examples. I’m sure it’ll end up on DCUM eventually.

Are you a journalist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

What’s your basis for saying it’s bogus given the incredibly strong evidence from the litigation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

There is literally no factor an admissions office can consider that does not have a disparate impact on one group or another.

Every single person rejected from any college can sue.

It does not matter what the college uses to make the decision.

Pure SAT? Disparate impact against whites.

Pure GPA? Disparate impact against Asians.

Athletics, legacy, donations? Disparate impact against non-whites.

Ability to pay? Disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.

Use any factor except pure 100% lottery and you will be sued.

Most of those who sue are whiners and wouldn't have gotten accepted anyways. It's very easy to scapegoat and find blame.

Harvard’s admissions process boiled down to “Asians have unlikeable personalities.” It’s the most racist thing I’ve ever seen an institution do in my lifetime.

It’s not scapegoating at all. If any institution had a process like that that downgraded black applicants across the board for personality we would all flip out. Because it’s just shockingly unthinkably racist.

That is bogus. A gross exaggeration at best. How can they have such a high percentage of Asian students if they think Asians are "unlikeable?" Could it be that some parents push their kids so hard that they are so full of technical accomplishments, they have not developed as well in other ways? And, that culture (not race) may possibly play some role in this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

That would be smart if it were true. But the opposite is happening. Colleges are going on the record in absolutely moronic ways. Talk about free discovery.

NP: Can you provide a few examples?

I’m working on something that will be published soon compiling some examples. I’m sure it’ll end up on DCUM eventually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Correct. Most people never read the ruling. The papers like to quote the Roberts passage, but he also warned against using it as a backdoor. The court couldn't (as it never would have wanted to) rule that colleges couldn't tell kids what to talk about in the essays. But schools will need to tread carefully because as long as someone can show a pattern of admitting one race at a lower standard measured by grades and scores, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Don't worry: the top colleges have excellent lawyers. They have been preparing for this ruling.

You are kidding, right? Most 'excellent lawyers' even at top companies don't litigate. They outsource that to expensive firms. Been there, done that. Never understood why we were paying the big bucks for someone to write contracts while outsourcing all the real, difficult work to an outside firm. But, I digress.

The college lawyers are not litigating. They are crafting the language to avoid litigation from the losers in the zero-sum admissions game.

That would be smart if it were true. But the opposite is happening. Colleges are going on the record in absolutely moronic ways. Talk about free discovery.

NP: Can you provide a few examples?