Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just put on the application “were your ancestors even enslaved in the United States”

Because racial quotas in college admission have nothing to do with slavery.

This shows you don't understand the issue at all. It's not reparations, and it is not affirmative action.

It has to do with colleges wanting a representative balance in races to achieve their mission. If they can't then they can't get the students they want, for the same reason non AA people don't choose to attend excellent HBC schools. And in colleges where Asians are URM applicants, they get the same benefit from the policy, which is again proof it isn't racist.

These are facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Wait. Are you trying to rationalize slavery? WTF?

Nope. It's something happened in the history.
I just don't understand the slavery argument for Blacks born in the 21st century in the US

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

But they still get plus points for being Black?

And they should. Do you think the racist cop pulling them over for no reason or shooting them stops to ask if they were born in the US or Africa? How about the rednecks shooting them when they go out for a jog? Do you think they care if the person is African or American born? How about the store security guard following them around? Does the guard do a passport check?

Just a few examples of how it’s different for black folks.

Now you understand it is very important thing to treat each individual as a person not as a part of grouping especially with skin color.

Of course it is, but do you see how black people end up behind before they even get to the finish line. I know you are capable of understanding. You just don’t want to because you are so concurred that some undeserving URM with lower test scores might keep your snowflake out of Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

But they still get plus points for being Black?

And they should. Do you think the racist cop pulling them over for no reason or shooting them stops to ask if they were born in the US or Africa? How about the rednecks shooting them when they go out for a jog? Do you think they care if the person is African or American born? How about the store security guard following them around? Does the guard do a passport check?

Just a few examples of how it’s different for black folks.

Now you understand it is very important thing to treat each individual as a person not as a part of grouping especially with skin color.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

It's not a personality test. I don't even know what you are saying.

Some test don’t require you to fill in little tiny bubbles.

Lol and you wonder how you failed it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

Except that there was never such thing as 'personality tests'


Also we have clear explanation for low SAT.
They are not prepared well and bomb the test.

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?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

When and where was this?

It was true for me and my friends in suburban DC in the 80s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for Asians.

It's not a personality test. I don't even know what you are saying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

Well college board never has to explain why black kid’s systematically score low on SATs why should someone have to explain a systematic low score on personality tests for 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:

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).

It sounds so stpuid a kid born in 2023 is affected by the slavery of his/her slave ancestors.

Yes, stupid and very sad that this is true.

How is the kid affected by slavery today?

I wrote quite a bit about the impacts of slavery that are still very much with us — and I erased it all. Instead, I’ll flip it.

If your parents or grandparents or great great grandparents came to this country in search of a better life — and actually found one, how does this affect kids in your family today?

Do you think Blacks in the US today would have been better if their ancestors stayed in somewhere Africa so they are in Africa today?

Unlikely but choice matters. I wonder if we asked today, many from African countries would volunteer to come here as slaves.

Your ignorance is showing.

I bet you don't know a single African. They have pride. They don't come here to slave. That's why they outperform native born whites and blacks.

But they still get plus points for being Black?

And they should. Do you think the racist cop pulling them over for no reason or shooting them stops to ask if they were born in the US or Africa? How about the rednecks shooting them when they go out for a jog? Do you think they care if the person is African or American born? How about the store security guard following them around? Does the guard do a passport check?

Just a few examples of how it’s different for black folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you heard the arguments by the two sides?
I thought Waxman, the Harvard lawyer was combative, weaved and dodged on several questions and at one time had to be told to keep quiet and let the Justices ask their question!!!

Basically both Harvard and UBC couldn't answer five basic questions satisfactorily

1) Give a clear succinct definition of Diversity, explain tangible benefits to the university community of pursuing it and how they measure it

2) How and when will they know when they can stop using race conscious admissions to achieve diversity and his long they think it will take

3) If Diversity is that important, why aren't Harvard and UNC ready to use race neutral options while sacrificing other factors like academic achievement, scores, SES etc to fill their class. Clearly they can do it, they just don't want to, given the trade-offs they will need to make

4) Harvard could not explain the blatant disparity in the personality scores, even after repeatedly being questioned on it

5) If they admit they are making progress( both Harvard Ave UNC admitted this) then why is their process essentially the same as it was when Bakke was decided ( Basically, why aren't race conscious admissions becoming less and less important). Waxman, really stumbled on this question.

Given all that and the hard push back from the conservative justices, I don't think Harvard and UNC will prevail here.

Maybe Roberts will try for a compromise

4…. Why should they explain disparity in personality scores?

Huh? As PPs have explained, the admissions office systematically rated Asians with lower personality scores than other races, while alumni interviewers rated them on par with other applicants. Harvard shouldn't have to explain why it thinks Asians have worse personalities than others, and whether this was initial or implicit bias? Would you be okay if they were doing this to another race like URM?

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?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

When and where was this?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Somethings happening with the SAT that there are that many perfect scores. There used to be that many scoring over 700.

I’m not sure what time periods your comparing, but one issue is that more people are deliberately prepared for the SATs, and more people are spending more time — both in and outside of school — preparing for them. Many years ago, outside perhaps some of prep-schools, most students just took the tests one time, with zero specific preparation. The thought, then, was that the SATs reflected ability more than the predictable results of a decade or more of coaching.

tldr: more kids being coached means more kids with higher—and even perfect — scores.

When and where was this?

It was true for me and my friends in suburban DC in the 80s.

-1 DH went to school in DC and only took it once during senior year with no prep.

Anonymous wrote:Results from Michigan SATs in 2022. 25% of Asians scored 1400-1600, 0% from blacks. Once Harvard and Ivies take top scoring black students, there are much lower scores for the 2nd tier of colleges.

https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/10/Michigan-SAT-1.png?ssl=1