Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please why do you think these universities have such appeal? If people are so keen on merit, why is Caltech not the number one university in America? People want their children to run shoulders with the elite that’s why.

What on earth are you babbling on about? There is an almost perfect correlation between the most selective universities and the best universities. Not everybody wants to go to Caltech because not everybody is focused on tech, but obviously enough people do that it has an 8% acceptance rate.

Define “best.” The ivies have a cachet that goes beyond the quantitative. Not sure why you this makes you hysteric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please why do you think these universities have such appeal? If people are so keen on merit, why is Caltech not the number one university in America? People want their children to run shoulders with the elite that’s why.

What on earth are you babbling on about? There is an almost perfect correlation between the most selective universities and the best universities. Not everybody wants to go to Caltech because not everybody is focused on tech, but obviously enough people do that it has an 8% acceptance rate.

Anonymous wrote:Please why do you think these universities have such appeal? If people are so keen on merit, why is Caltech not the number one university in America? People want their children to run shoulders with the elite that’s why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where in that article is is cited that he had a 3.3 GPA?

Obama graduated from Columbia in 1983 with a degree in political science. At Columbia in 1983, you needed a GPA of 3.3 or higher to with honors. He did not graduate with honors, which means his GPA was between a 2.0 and a 3.3.

More astonishing is that you did not know this, but then again you live no doubt in a progressive bubble free from the interference of fair and balanced reporting.

That said, I have no doubt that he his very intelligent, plus he has the charisma etc required of a leader. That's not the point of this discussion. The point here is that without the preferences being discussed above, he never would have gotten into the schools he graduated from.

First, please provide your citation for his graduation without honors.

Second, even if that is true, it does not mean his GPA was that as he was a transfer student. Transfer students are frequently not given honors designations if they did not take all of their classes at the institution issuing the degree. (This is not a theory, it happened to my wife with a GPA above 3.9 at a state directional, because she had taken half her classes elsewhere). More astonishing is that you did not know this, but then again you live no doubt in a conservative bubble free from the interference of facts.

And yes, the above explanation might even apply to why the current president did not receive honors designation at Penn since he transferred there from Fordham.

Facts are good. Assumptions are bad. Being an anonymous, condescending person free of facts and full of assumptions is the royal flush of BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where in that article is is cited that he had a 3.3 GPA?

Obama graduated from Columbia in 1983 with a degree in political science. At Columbia in 1983, you needed a GPA of 3.3 or higher to with honors. He did not graduate with honors, which means his GPA was between a 2.0 and a 3.3.

More astonishing is that you did not know this, but then again you live no doubt in a progressive bubble free from the interference of fair and balanced reporting.

That said, I have no doubt that he his very intelligent, plus he has the charisma etc required of a leader. That's not the point of this discussion. The point here is that without the preferences being discussed above, he never would have gotten into the schools he graduated from.

First, please provide your citation for his graduation without honors.

Second, even if that is true, it does not mean his GPA was that as he was a transfer student. Transfer students are frequently not given honors designations if they did not take all of their classes at the institution issuing the degree. (This is not a theory, it happened to my wife with a GPA above 3.9 at a state directional, because she had taken half her classes elsewhere). More astonishing is that you did not know this, but then again you live no doubt in a conservative bubble free from the interference of facts.

And yes, the above explanation might even apply to why the current president did not receive honors designation at Penn since he transferred there from Fordham.

Facts are good. Assumptions are bad. Being an anonymous, condescending person free of facts and full of assumptions is the royal flush of BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where in that article is is cited that he had a 3.3 GPA?

Obama graduated from Columbia in 1983 with a degree in political science. At Columbia in 1983, you needed a GPA of 3.3 or higher to with honors. He did not graduate with honors, which means his GPA was between a 2.0 and a 3.3.

More astonishing is that you did not know this, but then again you live no doubt in a progressive bubble free from the interference of fair and balanced reporting.

That said, I have no doubt that he his very intelligent, plus he has the charisma etc required of a leader. That's not the point of this discussion. The point here is that without the preferences being discussed above, he never would have gotten into the schools he graduated from.

Anonymous wrote:Well I think there's an argument to be made that legacy admissions most strongly benefit rich white people so it's only fair that if affirmative action goes away, so does legacy preference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.

He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?

Nevertheless, he entered HLS from Columbia with only a 3.3. I had to have a 4.0 at a time when a 4.0 meant valedictorian or salutatorian. I was the former. He made the Law Review not on grades but by write-on with AA points added on as well. He was voted in as Editor NOT by grades, which is how it was done when I attended. And he was viewed as a very weak Editor. He did not even go on to clerk. Judges know who is write-on HLS law review and who is not. He made magna because Harvard had shifted from blind grading to open grading so he got brownie points in class for being AA. It once meant something to be on HLS law review by grades and to make editor that way. It now means very little. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

Obama is intelligent - intelligent enough to game the system and leverage himself upwards by taking advantage of being a reasonably articulate and popular black guy. A white person with the same intelligence would still be a community organizer in Chicago, living off his lawyer wife.

The one thing the presidential examples all have in common, whether Bush II or Obama or Trump, is taking advantage of the cards that were dealt to them. I don't judge any of them for gaming the system that is called life.

A financial adviser named Edward Blum, who orchestrated Fisher v. Texas, the most recent Supreme Court case attacking affirmative action, is also behind the lawsuit against Harvard. But instead of alleging bias against whites, he and the plaintiffs use supposed anti-Asian bias as a way to undermine affirmative action for blacks and Latinos.

In doing so, however, they sidestep a more glaring inequality in admissions: Harvard applicants who are recruited athletes or children of alumni enjoy significant advantages, and these candidates are disproportionately white and well-off. However, neither the university nor Mr. Blum’s legal team address this point. In fact, Mr. Blum’s expert witness, the economist Peter Arcidiacono, excludes applicants in these “special categories” from his analysis.

Instead, Mr. Blum and the plaintiffs claim that black and Latino applicants unfairly have a higher chance of admission than Asian and white applicants with the same academic record. But that’s a gross misunderstanding of how admissions policies work. When evaluating applications, Harvard takes into account many nonacademic qualities, like overcoming hardship, that are not easily captured by quantitative analyses.

If Mr. Blum were really concerned with fairness, he would instead question the metrics for admissions decisions that often benefit white applicants: not only athletic recruiting and legacy preferences, but also less visible but still unbalanced considerations like geographic diversity, which favors whites because minorities in the United States are concentrated on the coasts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.

He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?

Nevertheless, he entered HLS from Columbia with only a 3.3. I had to have a 4.0 at a time when a 4.0 meant valedictorian or salutatorian. I was the former. He made the Law Review not on grades but by write-on with AA points added on as well. He was voted in as Editor NOT by grades, which is how it was done when I attended. And he was viewed as a very weak Editor. He did not even go on to clerk. Judges know who is write-on HLS law review and who is not. He made magna because Harvard had shifted from blind grading to open grading so he got brownie points in class for being AA. It once meant something to be on HLS law review by grades and to make editor that way. It now means very little. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

Where in that article is is cited that he had a 3.3 GPA?

Obama graduated from Columbia in 1983 with a degree in political science. At Columbia in 1983, you needed a GPA of 3.3 or higher to with honors. He did not graduate with honors, which means his GPA was between a 2.0 and a 3.3.

More astonishing is that you did not know this, but then again you live no doubt in a progressive bubble free from the interference of fair and balanced reporting.

That said, I have no doubt that he his very intelligent, plus he has the charisma etc required of a leader. That's not the point of this discussion. The point here is that without the preferences being discussed above, he never would have gotten into the schools he graduated from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.

He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?

Nevertheless, he entered HLS from Columbia with only a 3.3. I had to have a 4.0 at a time when a 4.0 meant valedictorian or salutatorian. I was the former. He made the Law Review not on grades but by write-on with AA points added on as well. He was voted in as Editor NOT by grades, which is how it was done when I attended. And he was viewed as a very weak Editor. He did not even go on to clerk. Judges know who is write-on HLS law review and who is not. He made magna because Harvard had shifted from blind grading to open grading so he got brownie points in class for being AA. It once meant something to be on HLS law review by grades and to make editor that way. It now means very little. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html