Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asians’ low personality score was based on the perception that they’d study too much, be too quiet in class, would struggle to contribute to group and team work because of their docile natures, and probably couldn’t perform in leadership roles. That’s exactly what they received negative scores for *consistently*.


It is absolutely a racist stereotype that Asians are ‘typically’ the quiet kid in the back acing all of the math tests and never getting into trouble. They are great tonhsbe in the classroom…..bu not in any leadership positions because they’re ‘probably’ too quiet, etc.


What a disgusting racist trope. It’s just shocking an institution like Harvard promulgated this and has all sorts of racist supporters like this thread shows. This is EXACTLY why Asians continued to be denied positions of power in both the corporate world and government even though they do everything right snd often times far better than everyone else. Enough is enough. I’m glad Asians finally got pissed and are standing up for themselves.

It’s true though. They have been programmed by their parents to be docile and obey orders, not to counter authority and not to make their own decisions. This is cultural norm.

If you don't want to attend a school where half the students are hard working, then don't. It's a free country. But don't kid yourself that just because Asian parents push their kids hard that means the kids don't have their own thoughts and decisions. The younger the kid, the more guidance parents should have, with the goal to raise them to independent thinkers (because if kids are not influenced by parents, they will be influenced by something else, be it peers, social media, video games, etc and believe it or not, out of those possibilities, parents generally know best and have the best intentions). Do you honestly believe white liberal gen z'ers are independent thinkers? Because no one else does.

And what is wrong with raising kids who listen to their parents and defer to authority? Those kids become the citizens who form the bedrock of any functioning society. If you look at how to raise children, that is the ideal because parents are the primary teachers in a child's life, passing down tradition, morality, values. It's a modern fad to think that children should decide what they do in all areas of their life, that they somehow either have inherent passions or none. Asian parents for the most part, assume their kids are blank slates that can be formed by good parenting. Maybe the URM parents would do well to adopt this outlook rather than buy into the modern crap that keeps their communities down by teaching them that they either have it or they don't (in which case they need to rely on govt handouts and affirmative action).

Nobody wants to go to a college where half of the students are under intense parental pressure to get into Harvard Med School or be shunned by the family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The 14th Amendment was not enforced by the Supreme Court for 90 years, and now it is being interpreted for the opposite purpose as its intent. It was meant to remedy the legacy of discrimination, but now it has been interpreted as protection for maintaining the discriminatory effect of that legacy.

Not even close. It is clear. Can’t pick or decide stuff on race. Any race. There is no other way to view it.

We will not get to a good place as a country if we make any decision based on race.

Only if you ignore reality and history and pretend that opportunities and resources for everyone have been equivalent up to the point of college application. Test scores alone do not measure merit. They measure the extent of years of preparation for the tests.

Yes and colleges can still look at socioeconomic factors and consider how the race has affected the applicant personally in their essays. What it has outlawed is preference based solely on the color of someone's skin. I have not seen one good support for why such a travesty and blatantly unconstitutional and unamerican practice should continue.

But that is what they were doing already. They weren’t using a racial formula. They were making individual decisions on individual applicants and factoring individual circumstances. The case and decision were based on racial formulas that didn’t exist.

Yeah no. Go actually read what Harvard was doing. They were not looking at Asians as individuals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The 14th Amendment was not enforced by the Supreme Court for 90 years, and now it is being interpreted for the opposite purpose as its intent. It was meant to remedy the legacy of discrimination, but now it has been interpreted as protection for maintaining the discriminatory effect of that legacy.

Not even close. It is clear. Can’t pick or decide stuff on race. Any race. There is no other way to view it.

We will not get to a good place as a country if we make any decision based on race.

Only if you ignore reality and history and pretend that opportunities and resources for everyone have been equivalent up to the point of college application. Test scores alone do not measure merit. They measure the extent of years of preparation for the tests.

Yes and colleges can still look at socioeconomic factors and consider how the race has affected the applicant personally in their essays. What it has outlawed is preference based solely on the color of someone's skin. I have not seen one good support for why such a travesty and blatantly unconstitutional and unamerican practice should continue.

But that is what they were doing already. They weren’t using a racial formula. They were making individual decisions on individual applicants and factoring individual circumstances. The case and decision were based on racial formulas that didn’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The 14th Amendment was not enforced by the Supreme Court for 90 years, and now it is being interpreted for the opposite purpose as its intent. It was meant to remedy the legacy of discrimination, but now it has been interpreted as protection for maintaining the discriminatory effect of that legacy.

Not even close. It is clear. Can’t pick or decide stuff on race. Any race. There is no other way to view it.

We will not get to a good place as a country if we make any decision based on race.

Only if you ignore reality and history and pretend that opportunities and resources for everyone have been equivalent up to the point of college application. Test scores alone do not measure merit. They measure the extent of years of preparation for the tests.

Yes and colleges can still look at socioeconomic factors and consider how the race has affected the applicant personally in their essays. What it has outlawed is preference based solely on the color of someone's skin. I have not seen one good support for why such a travesty and blatantly unconstitutional and unamerican practice should continue.

But that is what they were doing already. They weren’t using a racial formula. They were making individual decisions on individual applicants and factoring individual circumstances. The case and decision were based on racial formulas that didn’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The 14th Amendment was not enforced by the Supreme Court for 90 years, and now it is being interpreted for the opposite purpose as its intent. It was meant to remedy the legacy of discrimination, but now it has been interpreted as protection for maintaining the discriminatory effect of that legacy.

Not even close. It is clear. Can’t pick or decide stuff on race. Any race. There is no other way to view it.

We will not get to a good place as a country if we make any decision based on race.

Only if you ignore reality and history and pretend that opportunities and resources for everyone have been equivalent up to the point of college application. Test scores alone do not measure merit. They measure the extent of years of preparation for the tests.

Yes and colleges can still look at socioeconomic factors and consider how the race has affected the applicant personally in their essays. What it has outlawed is preference based solely on the color of someone's skin. I have not seen one good support for why such a travesty and blatantly unconstitutional and unamerican practice should continue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yup, Legacy should be banned if they accept public money. Doubt we will get any politician to vote for it. That would be like them voting to make insider trader illegal for themselves.

If legacy are banned, then we won't have truly elite colleges with exclusive networks of connected people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yup, Legacy should be banned if they accept public money. Doubt we will get any politician to vote for it. That would be like them voting to make insider trader illegal for themselves.

If legacy are banned, then we won't have truly elite colleges with exclusive networks of connected people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asians’ low personality score was based on the perception that they’d study too much, be too quiet in class, would struggle to contribute to group and team work because of their docile natures, and probably couldn’t perform in leadership roles. That’s exactly what they received negative scores for *consistently*.


It is absolutely a racist stereotype that Asians are ‘typically’ the quiet kid in the back acing all of the math tests and never getting into trouble. They are great tonhsbe in the classroom…..bu not in any leadership positions because they’re ‘probably’ too quiet, etc.


What a disgusting racist trope. It’s just shocking an institution like Harvard promulgated this and has all sorts of racist supporters like this thread shows. This is EXACTLY why Asians continued to be denied positions of power in both the corporate world and government even though they do everything right snd often times far better than everyone else. Enough is enough. I’m glad Asians finally got pissed and are standing up for themselves.

It’s true though. They have been programmed by their parents to be docile and obey orders, not to counter authority and not to make their own decisions. This is cultural norm.

And what is wrong with raising kids who listen to their parents and defer to authority? Those kids become the citizens who form the bedrock of any functioning society. If you look at how to raise children, that is the ideal because parents are the primary teachers in a child's life, passing down tradition, morality, values. It's a modern fad to think that children should decide what they do in all areas of their life, that they somehow either have inherent passions or none. Asian parents for the most part, assume their kids are blank slates that can be formed by good parenting. Maybe the URM parents would do well to adopt this outlook rather than buy into the modern crap that keeps their communities down by teaching them that they either have it or they don't (in which case they need to rely on govt handouts and affirmative action).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So a lot more whites apply vs blacks because there are a lot more whites.

US population by race
White 59%
Hispanic 19%
Black 12%
Asian 6%

So you would expect matriculation rates at roughly these levels and yet, they aren't. The matriculation still over samples white students and under samples blacks and Asians.

Harvard is a bad example to base these type of things on. It’s a very small number of the total number of college students. Many top students do not even apply.

So 61,221 apply and 1,984 are admitted. 95% of those accepted have at a minimum 1540 sat, 35 act and 4.12 gpa. Over 1/2 of the applicants meet these numbers. This applicant pool is not representative of the US population- ie a higher percentage of whites and Asian; lower number blacks vs the general population. This exaggerates the statistics.

Looking at class make up Harvard
Black 15% in class/12% US population
Hispanic 12%/19%
Asian 28%/6%

So slightly over with blacks, sizable deficit with Hispanic(actually bigger given average age of Hispanic population vs US population) and Asian way way over represented.

Being admitted to Harvard is winning the lottery. No matter how you break down the admissions by race they will still turn away very qualified applicants. Harvard has a special program(Dean’s Interest List) for big donors who are admitted with much much lower scores. No one talks about it.

Harvard is private, does not have many students and should be able to do what they want in terms of admissions. Now the public colleges and universities is where this ruling will a large impact on continuing the historic economically disparities between the races.

Anonymous wrote:If you think yesterday was bad for rhe left, wait until today's ruling on cake for a gay wedding and student loan ruling. Heads will be exploding around 11am!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So a lot more whites apply vs blacks because there are a lot more whites.

US population by race
White 59%
Hispanic 19%
Black 12%
Asian 6%

So you would expect matriculation rates at roughly these levels and yet, they aren't. The matriculation still over samples white students and under samples blacks and Asians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asians’ low personality score was based on the perception that they’d study too much, be too quiet in class, would struggle to contribute to group and team work because of their docile natures, and probably couldn’t perform in leadership roles. That’s exactly what they received negative scores for *consistently*.


It is absolutely a racist stereotype that Asians are ‘typically’ the quiet kid in the back acing all of the math tests and never getting into trouble. They are great tonhsbe in the classroom…..bu not in any leadership positions because they’re ‘probably’ too quiet, etc.


What a disgusting racist trope. It’s just shocking an institution like Harvard promulgated this and has all sorts of racist supporters like this thread shows. This is EXACTLY why Asians continued to be denied positions of power in both the corporate world and government even though they do everything right snd often times far better than everyone else. Enough is enough. I’m glad Asians finally got pissed and are standing up for themselves.

It’s true though. They have been programmed by their parents to be docile and obey orders, not to counter authority and not to make their own decisions. This is cultural norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe we could focus on test scores if everybody didn't get an A in every class.

My DS has had his first year at a 'good' American high school. The standards are shockingly low. No essays at all in his junior year. Work that's not turned in gets a 50% grade. Sloppily written multiple choice questions. Kids basically just have to turn up to get an A. Why aren't we challenging our students?

- immigrant mom, not from an Asian country

That is very true. That’s why the kids who succeed are the ones that have moms who supplemented or can afford to pay for tutors and test prep.

American education is pretty bad.

Anonymous wrote:Boy has time changed 44