Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

When I took the SAT there was a baseball question

You had to know Orioles were American and cardinals were National.

You're misremembering.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

What are Asians and Whites in common but so much different for Blacks? culturally

What biase are we talking about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

are Asians purposefully pitting themselves against AA? I never see any mentions of Hispanics or Native Americans or Pacific Islanders....

Asian Americans aren't purposefully pitting themselves against anyone. They just want to be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin.

Way to use MLK speech.

well sure. You know that the civil rights movement also applied to Asian Americans who were also subjected to segregationist polices, right?

I mean FDR illegally put Asian Americans into internment camps as recently as last century...

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:

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.

It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

Because they don't receive federal money.

Goldman Sachs has no federal contracts?

Do you know how wrong you are? Like, you couldn't be more wrong if you said 1+1=6?

They don't get 'Free' money and also don't get all kinds of tax benefits.

Harvard can go completely private and pay all the taxes like Goldman Sachs and don't recive free money.

You are wrong, and clearly uninformed. What "free money" do colleges get?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

When I took the SAT there was a baseball question

You had to know Orioles were American and cardinals were National.

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:

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.

It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

Because they don't receive federal money.

Goldman Sachs has no federal contracts?

Do you know how wrong you are? Like, you couldn't be more wrong if you said 1+1=6?

They don't get 'Free' money and also don't get all kinds of tax benefits.

Harvard can go completely private and pay all the taxes like Goldman Sachs and don't recive free money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

Because they don't receive federal money.

Goldman Sachs has no federal contracts?

Do you know how wrong you are? Like, you couldn't be more wrong if you said 1+1=6?

DP. indeed, companies are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and neither should any institution, especially one that does receive some public money.

Companies are not allow to violate laws. Nor are colleges.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-about-race-and-color-discrimination-employment

It is not discriminatory to one race to ensure other races are not discriminated against, even in a zero-sum process like admissions or hiring. It is only when those policies are enforced against a particular race uniformly that it is illegal, and immoral.

Seeking balance that reflects the general population is the best way to ensure there are not any explicit or implicit prejudices against a particular URM group.

Really? Tell that to the NBA

The old NBA argument again! The dumbest argument in this entire topic! Not relevant in any way!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

Because they don't receive federal money.

Goldman Sachs has no federal contracts?

Do you know how wrong you are? Like, you couldn't be more wrong if you said 1+1=6?

DP. indeed, companies are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and neither should any institution, especially one that does receive some public money.

Companies are not allow to violate laws. Nor are colleges.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-about-race-and-color-discrimination-employment

It is not discriminatory to one race to ensure other races are not discriminated against, even in a zero-sum process like admissions or hiring. It is only when those policies are enforced against a particular race uniformly that it is illegal, and immoral.

Seeking balance that reflects the general population is the best way to ensure there are not any explicit or implicit prejudices against a particular URM group.

Really? Tell that to the NBA

The old NBA argument again! The dumbest argument in this entire topic! Not relevant in any way!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

? If you want to talk about cultural differences, generations of African Americans have way more cultural commonalities with American culture than a 2nd gen Asian American.

And if these tests were implemented by racists, do you think those racists weren't racist against Asian people? Did you know that segregation laws applied to Asian Americans as well?

Have you seen the latest SATs? Form the college board's own study guide: In the complex number system, which of the following is equal to
(14 − 2i)(7 + 12i)? (Note: _i = √−1) How can people not realize how racially biased that question is?

"Math" is much more than pulling a random question from a test.

There are many steps required to get to the point of answering that question.

Sure there was. Old tests are available, I don't suppose that you could actually point to an example of a biased question

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:

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.

It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

Because they don't receive federal money.

Goldman Sachs has no federal contracts?

Do you know how wrong you are? Like, you couldn't be more wrong if you said 1+1=6?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

? If you want to talk about cultural differences, generations of African Americans have way more cultural commonalities with American culture than a 2nd gen Asian American.

And if these tests were implemented by racists, do you think those racists weren't racist against Asian people? Did you know that segregation laws applied to Asian Americans as well?

Have you seen the latest SATs? Form the college board's own study guide: In the complex number system, which of the following is equal to
(14 − 2i)(7 + 12i)? (Note: _i = √−1) How can people not realize how racially biased that question is?

"Math" is much more than pulling a random question from a test.

There are many steps required to get to the point of answering that question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't matter what they are looking for as long as they don't violate the law. They can look for anything they want. They can decide to only admit left-handed people from Nebraska if they want.

Why doesn't anyone demand to know what Goldman Sachs or Amazon are looking for with their hiring practices?

This is only about people who, as noted above, want it to be marginally less impossible to get their kids into the 10-20 top schools. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, what is good for the colleges, the vast number of applicants, or the country.

Because they don't receive federal money.

Goldman Sachs has no federal contracts?

Do you know how wrong you are? Like, you couldn't be more wrong if you said 1+1=6?

DP. indeed, companies are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and neither should any institution, especially one that does receive some public money.

Companies are not allow to violate laws. Nor are colleges.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-about-race-and-color-discrimination-employment

It is not discriminatory to one race to ensure other races are not discriminated against, even in a zero-sum process like admissions or hiring. It is only when those policies are enforced against a particular race uniformly that it is illegal, and immoral.

Seeking balance that reflects the general population is the best way to ensure there are not any explicit or implicit prejudices against a particular URM group.

Really? Tell that to the NBA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

are Asians purposefully pitting themselves against AA? I never see any mentions of Hispanics or Native Americans or Pacific Islanders....

Asian Americans aren't purposefully pitting themselves against anyone. They just want to be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin.

Way to use MLK speech.

well sure. You know that the civil rights movement also applied to Asian Americans who were also subjected to segregationist polices, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow this is crazy, you can be the 4th lowest decile aa and still be way above asians. crazy no wonder asians feel discriminated

Standardized tests are culturally biased and we're originally implemented by a racist.

If the index was normalized for tests, this alleged disparity ( SFFA is the source of this massaged data) would be much lower.

Anyways, the SAT / ACT impact will continue to diminish over time.

When I took the SAT there was a baseball question

You had to know Orioles were American and cardinals were National.

And baseball itself wasn't integrated until the late 1940's.