Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what "problem" the OP was referring to, but I heard this year's college admission results are much worse comparing to prior years. These students were admitted to TJ before the "reform" FWIW.

Anonymous wrote:Let le warn all of you: after SCOTUS hands down the SFFA v. Harvard decision, colleges will be even more blatant practicing economic and geographical discrimination. UC has been punishing students from “rich” zip codes for years. It wouldn’t surprise me at all that a poor white or Asian kid might get preferential treatment over an upper middle class Black kid from an African immigrant family. FYI, the immigrant ethnic group that has the highest % of PhDs is not Indian or Chinese—it’s Nigerian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Are you calling poor people lazy? GTFO

No. But wealth is a good indication of innate intelligence, special talent (e.g. sports), and most importantly, work ethic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Your rich white law partner friend could’ve afforded to live anywhere & chose to live in a rich, segregated neighborhood.

State schools exist to serve the entire state. That means having students from the entire state.

I really really don’t want to bring religion into this, but the “rich white law partner” is a first-generation US-born child of Jewish immigrants. I know a lot of you have the stereotypical notion that all Jews are born rich. In fact, his family came here with NOTHING. They barely survived WW2. He himself had worked before college and worked part time during college. Talking about hard work and achieving the American Dream.

So you think that UC is justified in punishing his kids just because of his hard work and success? Because he bought an old house overlooking the Pacific Ocean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Your rich white law partner friend could’ve afforded to live anywhere & chose to live in a rich, segregated neighborhood.

State schools exist to serve the entire state. That means having students from the entire state.

I really really don’t want to bring religion into this, but the “rich white law partner” is a first-generation US-born child of Jewish immigrants. I know a lot of you have the stereotypical notion that all Jews are born rich. In fact, his family came here with NOTHING. They barely survived WW2. He himself had worked before college and worked part time during college. Talking about hard work and achieving the American Dream.

So you think that UC is justified in punishing his kids just because of his hard work and success? Because he bought an old house overlooking the Pacific Ocean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Your rich white law partner friend could’ve afforded to live anywhere & chose to live in a rich, segregated neighborhood.

State schools exist to serve the entire state. That means having students from the entire state.

I really really don’t want to bring religion into this, but the “rich white law partner” is a first-generation US-born child of Jewish immigrants. I know a lot of you have the stereotypical notion that all Jews are born rich. In fact, his family came here with NOTHING. They barely survived WW2. He himself had worked before college and worked part time during college. Talking about hard work and achieving the American Dream.

So you think that UC is justified in punishing his kids just because of his hard work and success? Because he bought an old house overlooking the Pacific Ocean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Your rich white law partner friend could’ve afforded to live anywhere & chose to live in a rich, segregated neighborhood.

State schools exist to serve the entire state. That means having students from the entire state.

I really really don’t want to bring religion into this, but the “rich white law partner” is a first-generation US-born child of Jewish immigrants. I know a lot of you have the stereotypical notion that all Jews are born rich. In fact, his family came here with NOTHING. They barely survived WW2. He himself had worked before college and worked part time during college. Talking about hard work and achieving the American Dream.

So you think that UC is justified in punishing his kids just because of his hard work and success? Because he bought an old house overlooking the Pacific Ocean?

Everyone works hard.

His kids have had every advantage there is.