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:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.

"Not qualified or capable" based on what? Who is defining the criteria for these schools? Big government?

What if their criteria is "different life experience/perspective"?

Not qualified based on test scores and GPA, which have a vast history of correlation with having the capability to succeed in college.

"different life experience/perspective" does not correlate at all with capability to do college-level work.

"Succeed in college" in what way? Why do you get to define what "success" means for colleges?

So you get to decide what is "college-level work"? Why can't colleges decide their own definition of the "work" and the "capability"?

And test scores do not predict academic success in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was a STEM major and my job is pretty gravy compared to a chef, or a communications major covering the war. [GTFO with this asinine nonsense.] The information is more complex but my brain works that way. I worked longer hours in the computer lab but it wasn’t “hard” work, it was a lot of work.

I think you mean it’s hard to realize your brain is not made for STEM.

No. It is liberal arts that, to the extent it is hard at all, is "a lot of work not hard work".

I have STEM degrees and liberal arts degrees so my brain "works" both ways. There is absolutely no question that STEM is objectively harder and not just "more work".

It’s harder to get an A perhaps but it’s not harder than a theater major performing.

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

It does in order for the hundreds of posts in this thread that claim it's deliberate to be true. I don't have a strong opinion about whatever decision SCOTUS makes, because I know colleges will find other ways to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I do have a problem with people claiming that college admission offices are deliberately excluding certain people based on their race, because it's a serious accusation that has no basis in fact.

Do you have a way to explain Harvard's personality scores other than racism?

if you see the post I made above the committee also uses essays in their score compared to personal interviewers. And lets not forget that the alumni interviewer has two separate sections: their overall review and their likeability review. The interviewers dont actually rate them all that much better compared to the scores white interviewers get. Teachers dont rate them better. Guidance counselors actually rate them worse. Committee is the only one with access to their essays. There is your difference.

One race scored demonstrably lower on the over all score based on personality and you answer is essays? So you think Asian American applicants wrote essays that where boring? OK racist.

Nope. You asked for an explanation. Essays and their rating are not objective. Maybe they are too well-written. Maybe their struggles and obstacles arent identifiable. Maybe they dont have self-directed activities. OR MAYBE JUST MAYBE, there are some students who write better essays or have better topics etc or struggles that they have overcome that rates them higher. I would also direct you to the other points. Other people that have met them dont seem to rate them higher than the white counterparts either. I would also note that the chart only compares WHITE TO ASIAN. Not to any other race. Interesting.....

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:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.

"Not qualified or capable" based on what? Who is defining the criteria for these schools? Big government?

What if their criteria is "different life experience/perspective"?

Not qualified based on test scores and GPA, which have a vast history of correlation with having the capability to succeed in college.

"different life experience/perspective" does not correlate at all with capability to do college-level work.

Nobody is being admitted with test scores/GPA that correlate with not being able to do the work at elite college (and UNC).

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

It does in order for the hundreds of posts in this thread that claim it's deliberate to be true. I don't have a strong opinion about whatever decision SCOTUS makes, because I know colleges will find other ways to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I do have a problem with people claiming that college admission offices are deliberately excluding certain people based on their race, because it's a serious accusation that has no basis in fact.

Do you have a way to explain Harvard's personality scores other than racism?

They're looking for future leaders who will bring them fame and glory and tons of money, and they believe they've found another tool to help them in figuring this out. Any measurement is going to have some groups that end up on top, and others that don't. Asians having the lowest scores does not indicate that they're being deliberately excluded. I'll bet if you broke it down by extracurricular activity instead of race, you'd find that athletes score higher than any other group and that those with no ECs would score lowest. That would not mean that those with no ECs were being discriminated against.

The top of the class does “best”, then it’s the athletes/artists/activists, then it’s the smart kids who were top of their class /SATs but standing next to the top 10% didn’t measure up (but are still amazing) … but they seem to not soar after graduation.

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.

"Not qualified or capable" based on what? Who is defining the criteria for these schools? Big government?

What if their criteria is "different life experience/perspective"?

Not qualified based on test scores and GPA, which have a vast history of correlation with having the capability to succeed in college.

"different life experience/perspective" does not correlate at all with capability to do college-level work.

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.

You don't get to decide what is qualified.

You are also a f-ing liar, as kids admitted under this policy are NOT "FLUNKING" (idiot vernacular not mine) OUT and you have no evidence they are.

You are a terrible person if you are not a troll. You need to do some self-examination.

+1

It sounds like the PP who was rationalizing slavery earlier.

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

It does in order for the hundreds of posts in this thread that claim it's deliberate to be true. I don't have a strong opinion about whatever decision SCOTUS makes, because I know colleges will find other ways to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I do have a problem with people claiming that college admission offices are deliberately excluding certain people based on their race, because it's a serious accusation that has no basis in fact.

Do you have a way to explain Harvard's personality scores other than racism?

They're looking for future leaders who will bring them fame and glory and tons of money, and they believe they've found another tool to help them in figuring this out. Any measurement is going to have some groups that end up on top, and others that don't. Asians having the lowest scores does not indicate that they're being deliberately excluded. I'll bet if you broke it down by extracurricular activity instead of race, you'd find that athletes score higher than any other group and that those with no ECs would score lowest. That would not mean that those with no ECs were being discriminated against.

Sure, a school saying that Asian American applicant have bad personalities is in no way racist. Especially coming from an institution with a history of discriminating against those who they did not want attending in large numbers despite being qualified. This is totally different than Jewish applicants and Catholic before them and we should totally give Harvard the benefit of the doubt now

Anonymous wrote:
I was a STEM major and my job is pretty gravy compared to a chef, or a communications major covering the war. [GTFO with this asinine nonsense.] The information is more complex but my brain works that way. I worked longer hours in the computer lab but it wasn’t “hard” work, it was a lot of work.

I think you mean it’s hard to realize your brain is not made for STEM.

No. It is liberal arts that, to the extent it is hard at all, is "a lot of work not hard work".

I have STEM degrees and liberal arts degrees so my brain "works" both ways. There is absolutely no question that STEM is objectively harder and not just "more work".

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.

You don't get to decide what is qualified.

You are also a f-ing liar, as kids admitted under this policy are NOT "FLUNKING" (idiot vernacular not mine) OUT and you have no evidence they are.

You are a terrible person if you are not a troll. You need to do some self-examination.

+1

At my elite school, the kids who were "flunking out" were the athletes. Everyone else was highly qualified.

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.

"Not qualified or capable" based on what? Who is defining the criteria for these schools? Big government?

What if their criteria is "different life experience/perspective"?

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.

Lol

Actually studies show that top of the class student who go to elite colleges and are all of a sudden not top do worse than kids who have great grades but are okay with struggling or have another “thing”/passion (sports/arts) that define them. That is why there is holistic admission because the outcome is better

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

If everyone else but White and Asian is included based on race, then white and asian applicants are being excluded on race. It doesn't look as bad for white applicants because numbers are skewed by legacy and sports, but an unhooked white applicant has the same impossible odds as an Asian applicant based solely on their race.

"Impossible odds"?

They are only at that level at 20 schools or so. See, this is your tell. You don't care about this policy, how it works, what it's intent is, whether it is better for the colleges or the country.

You only care about making it slightly less impossible for your kid to get into one of those 20 schools.

That's it. That's the truth, and that is why your position is morally indefensible.

+1

Completely F the brown kids so the Asian kids get a marginally better chance of going to an elite school.

It does not F the brown kids to exclude them from schools for which they are not qualified or capable.

In fact it hurts them more to admit them to schools where they will struggle and very likely drop out or flunk out.

You don't get to decide what is qualified.

You are also a f-ing liar, as kids admitted under this policy are NOT "FLUNKING" (idiot vernacular not mine) OUT and you have no evidence they are.

You are a terrible person if you are not a troll. You need to do some self-examination.

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

It does in order for the hundreds of posts in this thread that claim it's deliberate to be true. I don't have a strong opinion about whatever decision SCOTUS makes, because I know colleges will find other ways to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I do have a problem with people claiming that college admission offices are deliberately excluding certain people based on their race, because it's a serious accusation that has no basis in fact.

Do you have a way to explain Harvard's personality scores other than racism?

They're looking for future leaders who will bring them fame and glory and tons of money, and they believe they've found another tool to help them in figuring this out. Any measurement is going to have some groups that end up on top, and others that don't. Asians having the lowest scores does not indicate that they're being deliberately excluded. I'll bet if you broke it down by extracurricular activity instead of race, you'd find that athletes score higher than any other group and that those with no ECs would score lowest. That would not mean that those with no ECs were being discriminated against.

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:Nothing says the schools have to pick their students based on academic merit alone. It's not a simple GPA/standardized test score combo that is required to gain admission.

Athletes - If the schools choose to have athletic teams as an activity, why not fill them with decent players? Not shocking. Is a talented musician, academic team member, or speech/debate team member necessarily superior to or more valuable than a talented athlete under a holistic admissions approach?

Except that holistic admission shouldn’t be making you check Race Box and using that to discriminate based on race?

Right. Was stated in response to PPs stating that athletes shouldn't be given admissions "tips"/points/preferences.

To clarify, diversity on many different levels can be a goal. The schools shouldn't be using the box to eliminate people bc of their race. However, the schools also are not obligated to rank applicants solely by GPA and test scores.

So rank by race?

For the 100th time, nobody is saying solely use GPA + Tests.

And nobody is "using the box to eliminate people bc of their race"!!!

We'll find out in the Supreme Court

No, the Supreme Court will decide if the box can be used to INCLUDE people, not exclude them. There's a big difference. The former is Affirmative Action. The latter would be discrimination, and it's not happening.

Why is it that people refuse to acknowledge that admissions is zero sum? Using a box it INCLUDE some people necessarily means that another group has to be excluded.

Of course it's zero sum, but that exclusion is NOT deliberately aimed at keeping Asians out, which is what so many of the posts in this forum are stating. It's simply not true.

Does it have to be deliberate?

It does in order for the hundreds of posts in this thread that claim it's deliberate to be true. I don't have a strong opinion about whatever decision SCOTUS makes, because I know colleges will find other ways to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I do have a problem with people claiming that college admission offices are deliberately excluding certain people based on their race, because it's a serious accusation that has no basis in fact.

Do you have a way to explain Harvard's personality scores other than racism?

if you see the post I made above the committee also uses essays in their score compared to personal interviewers. And lets not forget that the alumni interviewer has two separate sections: their overall review and their likeability review. The interviewers dont actually rate them all that much better compared to the scores white interviewers get. Teachers dont rate them better. Guidance counselors actually rate them worse. Committee is the only one with access to their essays. There is your difference.

One race scored demonstrably lower on the over all score based on personality and you answer is essays? So you think Asian American applicants wrote essays that where boring? OK racist.