Anonymous wrote:Because racial diversity is more important, and directly targeting race is more effective for racial diversity.Anonymous wrote:One wonders why colleges didn’t do some of this stuff already, which would have still given them racial diversity AND vastly better economic diversity.
Because racial diversity is more important, and directly targeting race is more effective for racial diversity.Anonymous wrote:One wonders why colleges didn’t do some of this stuff already, which would have still given them racial diversity AND vastly better economic diversity.
Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.
NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.
No. Unless your consider 42 old. Their demos are enviable.
I’m always shocked when a link is posted here and someone says “paywall”. Who doesn’t subscribe to the NYT? I’m not always a fan, but can’t imagine not having access to the NYT.
https://gitnux.org/new-york-times-readership-statistics/
Do you work for the NYT?
I ask only because I know very few people who DO subscribe. I'm 33.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.
NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.
No. Unless your consider 42 old. Their demos are enviable.
I’m always shocked when a link is posted here and someone says “paywall”. Who doesn’t subscribe to the NYT? I’m not always a fan, but can’t imagine not having access to the NYT.
https://gitnux.org/new-york-times-readership-statistics/
Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Weird obsession over race. I get that the white male is the enemy of mankind, but it is getting convulted trying to game college admissions to achieve a predetermined outcome.
Nice try - but let’s not pretend there’s not a huge “race” problem they are trying to correct to help the underprivileged succeed. I applaud the top Universities for being United in these efforts.
No one cares about underdogs that can’t keep up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Weird obsession over race. I get that the white male is the enemy of mankind, but it is getting convulted trying to game college admissions to achieve a predetermined outcome.
Nice try - but let’s not pretend there’s not a huge “race” problem they are trying to correct to help the underprivileged succeed. I applaud the top Universities for being United in these efforts.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Colleges can easily identify high scoring URMs via the College Board Recognition Program, the National African American, Hispanic, and Indigenous Program awards. This requires taking the PSAT or multiple AP exams.
Which requires going to a school that offers multiple AP classes. Tell me, how many AP classes do most DCPS high schools, other than JR, Walls, and Banneker, offer?
NP. The College Board Recognition Program requires two, which is available at every DCPS high school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.
NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.
A lot of white males.
Yes! Conservative, white males are their target demographic.
A lot of jewish and asian males who think they are white
Jewish people are white you dumb#$$
Anonymous wrote:Scenario 4 is expanding the applicant pool.
Eukreka!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.
NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.
A lot of white males.
Yes! Conservative, white males are their target demographic.
A lot of jewish and asian males who think they are white
Jewish people are white you dumb#$$