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.

Amen. Every racist cites one sentence from John Roberts without having the reading ability to digest the full text of the decision, which clearly states on page 39 that discrimination induced by any soft or roundabout method (specifically citing essays) is now illegal

Right, but litigating that will be next to impossible. It’s s loophole that effectively swallows the general rule.

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.

Amen. Every racist cites one sentence from John Roberts without having the reading ability to digest the full text of the decision, which clearly states on page 39 that discrimination induced by any soft or roundabout method (specifically citing essays) is now illegal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A supplemental essay prompt from Sarah Lawrence college for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle:

“In a 2023 majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university,’” the question reads. “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Quoting directly from the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling and using it as an essay prompt.

Will other colleges follow suit?

Thoughts?

I think the problem with SL's prompt is the ending, the question itself: "describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Are applicants to interpret "the Court's decision" as ending affirmative action? The college is asking how an applicants educational goals are affected by the end of affirmative action. Or, are applicants to interpret "the Court's decision" as referring to Robert's language about race affecting a person's life?

Either way, the final sentence of the prompt is asking directly about race; is it not doing exactly what the opinion forbids?

Applicants to the School of Arts & Sciences or the School of Engineering:

Please respond to one of the following three prompts in 200-250 words:

It’s cool to love learning. What excites your intellectual curiosity and why?

How have the environments or experiences of your upbringing – your family, home, neighborhood, or community – shaped the person you are today?

Using a specific example or two, tell us about a way that you contributed to building a collaborative and/or inclusive community.

Anonymous wrote:

A supplemental essay prompt from Sarah Lawrence college for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle:

“In a 2023 majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university,’” the question reads. “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Quoting directly from the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling and using it as an essay prompt.

Will other colleges follow suit?

Thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well yes an industry that was just bench slapped by SCOTUS for racist practices will holler.

Under and overrepresentation doesn’t necessarily matter. No one thinks the NBA is overrepresented by black men because they’re racist against Asians.

The problem is that schools wanted to balance race and had to adjust the admissions criteria to make sure to tamp down the number of Asians. Kind of like if the NBA told teams to make sure underrepresented races had more spots on the teams.

I chuckle every time I see this NBA talking point trotted out again (and again and again and again). The posters who think this is a great analogy can’t seem to understand why it simply isn’t and that it doesn’t make the point they think it makes.

But it does make for a good laugh each time it shows up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A supplemental essay prompt from Sarah Lawrence college for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle:

“In a 2023 majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university,’” the question reads. “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Quoting directly from the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling and using it as an essay prompt.

Will other colleges follow suit?

Thoughts?

I think the problem with SL's prompt is the ending, the question itself: "describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Are applicants to interpret "the Court's decision" as ending affirmative action? The college is asking how an applicants educational goals are affected by the end of affirmative action. Or, are applicants to interpret "the Court's decision" as referring to Robert's language about race affecting a person's life?

Either way, the final sentence of the prompt is asking directly about race; is it not doing exactly what the opinion forbids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wonder how they missed you for the Supreme Court nomination!

Seriously though, the SC did find systemic bias, not just onsies twosies where a couple rougue/racist AOs did something nasty. The whole f'ing system is nasty.

If everyone is serious about this, why not a law that mandates that
- 5% of all seats at all institutions be set aside for Blacks descended from slaves and Native Americans (at least 50%) both with a means test,
- another 3% for kids based on SES and
- another 2-3% for donors (larger the donation, the higher your priority).
- Foreigners no more than 5% of the total unless the school has not been able to fill their seats in the past 3 years. This will automatically push foreigners to lower ranked schools. They can take it or leave it.
- colleges should not be allowed to accumulate more than 5X annual tuition in endowments. The rest should be used to subsidize tuition across the board.
- tuition rate increases should be frozen and be more than the increase in CPI.
That's it! Screw athletic recruits, legacy and all other nonsense. Open the remaining 90% to open competition. Time for educational institutions to focus on education and not turn into an extended county fair. And yes, congress can do this and should especially since these cartels don't pay any taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

A supplemental essay prompt from Sarah Lawrence college for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle:

“In a 2023 majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university,’” the question reads. “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Quoting directly from the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling and using it as an essay prompt.

Will other colleges follow suit?

Thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wonder how they missed you for the Supreme Court nomination!

Seriously though, the SC did find systemic bias, not just onsies twosies where a couple rougue/racist AOs did something nasty. The whole f'ing system is nasty.

If everyone is serious about this, why not a law that mandates that
- 5% of all seats at all institutions be set aside for Blacks descended from slaves and Native Americans (at least 50%) both with a means test,
- another 3% for kids based on SES and
- another 2-3% for donors (larger the donation, the higher your priority).
- Foreigners no more than 5% of the total unless the school has not been able to fill their seats in the past 3 years. This will automatically push foreigners to lower ranked schools. They can take it or leave it.
- colleges should not be allowed to accumulate more than 5X annual tuition in endowments. The rest should be used to subsidize tuition across the board.
- tuition rate increases should be frozen and be more than the increase in CPI.
That's it! Screw athletic recruits, legacy and all other nonsense. Open the remaining 90% to open competition. Time for educational institutions to focus on education and not turn into an extended county fair. And yes, congress can do this and should especially since these cartels don't pay any taxes.

Your theory here is that the party that elected Tommy Tuberville is going to outlaw college football.

Ok.

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.

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.

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?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.

Anonymous wrote:

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

And not that difficult to make up. BTW, Does Asian trauma count?

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.

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?

DP. There are going to be some applicants as you describe, URMs with high stats and the award, no trauma essay, no economic disadvantage. With high stats, wouldn't admission be easy to defend as long as the applicant's race is not an explicit basis? Holistic admission, essay reading in particular, is ultimately subjective.

No. Asians will sue, saying the school admitted 70% of Blacks with high stats but only 20% of Asians with the same high stats (or whatever the actual numbers are). And since the actual numbers aren’t public, schools who turn away even one Asian student and admit even one Black, white, or Hispanic student are going to get sued. Maybe they won’t win, but I keep poring over the opinions and I can’t say for sure that they’ll lose.