Anonymous wrote:All I can think of is the arms race and the one-upmanship my kids will endure. Each highschool in our area has a different magnet program. The one DC1 is interested in is located at the rich, high-pressure high school. We moved out of the DMV to allow him to have a more normal high school experience. This would pit DC1 against the most competitive, cut-throat kids in the county, just because he’s interested in a certain subject. DC2 was interested in applying to a magnet program at a less competitive high school, and this can only help him. I don’t know what we’ll do when the time comes.

Your situation sounds somewhat like ours. Our locality tries to play games with some of the programs by putting things like the full IB slate or the engineering magnet at HSs with high FARMs and otherwise low test scores. To some extent, it works. All are fully accredited (except one that has “conditions”) but it’s all on the backs of the magnet kids. And there’s very little interaction between “center” and “gen ed” kids. What would be interesting is if they’d put the trade-school/certification programs at the high(er) SES HSs but that will never happen.

Our DC are at a magnet program in a lower (overall) stress, highly diverse HS. It has lots of challenges but is infinitely better than the insanely competitive and cutthroat atmosphere at the high end schools. As for recruiting, pffft, UVA bailed and VT never even planned to come. Ivies or other Top 20? You’ve got to be kidding me. But the JMU, Radford, CNU, VCU, VUU, VSU, Hampton, & ODU reps are kind and regulars. USC and Elon used to show but not this year.

Regardless, the top 15% will likely go on to college. Somewhere. And do well…probably everywhere. They are tough and talented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's telling that most of this thread is about side issues like "are Jews white?", "what are the demographics of the NYT comments section?", etc.

No one wants to discuss the fact that there are going to be a lot fewer URMs on T80 college campuses next fall. Neither supporters of AA nor opponents of it seem interested in this fact.

Weird.

It's obvious why the opponents don't care. Supporters likely believe that those might be compensated with lower income populations from all races, which might be less privileged than URMs from very wealthy families

Idk, before the decision ,opponents were telling us this was an important step forward to a color blind society. You'd think they'd be crowing about how we're closer to a meritocracy now that undeserving URMs have been shown the door. And supporters were telling us the sky would fall oi AA were abolished, but no one is acting like the sky is falling now. Basically no one wants to touch it.

It would be one thing if it was just ivies, which people hate, but this story is about the whole T80, which includes a lot of state flagships.

I think people - on both sides - are in denial about the size of the gaps that exist between URM students and whites/Asians. Not gaps, chasms.

They think it'll be a few less blacks here and there. But it's gonna be a 30% or more decline. If AOs really juke it. No one is ready for this.

Based on interviewing, this chasm exists after college as well. We get a ton of pressure to lower standards when hiring candidates to increase our diversity numbers.

And it's still hard to find qualified candidates, even with lowered standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's telling that most of this thread is about side issues like "are Jews white?", "what are the demographics of the NYT comments section?", etc.

No one wants to discuss the fact that there are going to be a lot fewer URMs on T80 college campuses next fall. Neither supporters of AA nor opponents of it seem interested in this fact.

Weird.

It's obvious why the opponents don't care. Supporters likely believe that those might be compensated with lower income populations from all races, which might be less privileged than URMs from very wealthy families

Idk, before the decision ,opponents were telling us this was an important step forward to a color blind society. You'd think they'd be crowing about how we're closer to a meritocracy now that undeserving URMs have been shown the door. And supporters were telling us the sky would fall oi AA were abolished, but no one is acting like the sky is falling now. Basically no one wants to touch it.

It would be one thing if it was just ivies, which people hate, but this story is about the whole T80, which includes a lot of state flagships.

I think people - on both sides - are in denial about the size of the gaps that exist between URM students and whites/Asians. Not gaps, chasms.

They think it'll be a few less blacks here and there. But it's gonna be a 30% or more decline. If AOs really juke it. No one is ready for this.

It's gonna be a decline? I think we're ready for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's telling that most of this thread is about side issues like "are Jews white?", "what are the demographics of the NYT comments section?", etc.

No one wants to discuss the fact that there are going to be a lot fewer URMs on T80 college campuses next fall. Neither supporters of AA nor opponents of it seem interested in this fact.

Weird.

It's obvious why the opponents don't care. Supporters likely believe that those might be compensated with lower income populations from all races, which might be less privileged than URMs from very wealthy families

Idk, before the decision ,opponents were telling us this was an important step forward to a color blind society. You'd think they'd be crowing about how we're closer to a meritocracy now that undeserving URMs have been shown the door. And supporters were telling us the sky would fall oi AA were abolished, but no one is acting like the sky is falling now. Basically no one wants to touch it.

It would be one thing if it was just ivies, which people hate, but this story is about the whole T80, which includes a lot of state flagships.

I think people - on both sides - are in denial about the size of the gaps that exist between URM students and whites/Asians. Not gaps, chasms.

They think it'll be a few less blacks here and there. But it's gonna be a 30% or more decline. If AOs really juke it. No one is ready for this.

Based on interviewing, this chasm exists after college as well. We get a ton of pressure to lower standards when hiring candidates to increase our diversity numbers.

My work does this too. I can't imagine it will be legal for much longer.

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.

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.

Everyone I know subscribes. Age group 35-50.

I subscribe as well. I think it’s less about age and more about your socioeconomic status / politics/intellectual interests (or lack thereof) than age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's telling that most of this thread is about side issues like "are Jews white?", "what are the demographics of the NYT comments section?", etc.

No one wants to discuss the fact that there are going to be a lot fewer URMs on T80 college campuses next fall. Neither supporters of AA nor opponents of it seem interested in this fact.

Weird.

It's obvious why the opponents don't care. Supporters likely believe that those might be compensated with lower income populations from all races, which might be less privileged than URMs from very wealthy families

Idk, before the decision ,opponents were telling us this was an important step forward to a color blind society. You'd think they'd be crowing about how we're closer to a meritocracy now that undeserving URMs have been shown the door. And supporters were telling us the sky would fall oi AA were abolished, but no one is acting like the sky is falling now. Basically no one wants to touch it.

It would be one thing if it was just ivies, which people hate, but this story is about the whole T80, which includes a lot of state flagships.

I think people - on both sides - are in denial about the size of the gaps that exist between URM students and whites/Asians. Not gaps, chasms.

They think it'll be a few less blacks here and there. But it's gonna be a 30% or more decline. If AOs really juke it. No one is ready for this.

Based on interviewing, this chasm exists after college as well. We get a ton of pressure to lower standards when hiring candidates to increase our diversity numbers.

All I can think of is the arms race and the one-upmanship my kids will endure. Each highschool in our area has a different magnet program. The one DC1 is interested in is located at the rich, high-pressure high school. We moved out of the DMV to allow him to have a more normal high school experience. This would pit DC1 against the most competitive, cut-throat kids in the county, just because he’s interested in a certain subject. DC2 was interested in applying to a magnet program at a less competitive high school, and this can only help him. I don’t know what we’ll do when the time comes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's telling that most of this thread is about side issues like "are Jews white?", "what are the demographics of the NYT comments section?", etc.

No one wants to discuss the fact that there are going to be a lot fewer URMs on T80 college campuses next fall. Neither supporters of AA nor opponents of it seem interested in this fact.

Weird.

It's obvious why the opponents don't care. Supporters likely believe that those might be compensated with lower income populations from all races, which might be less privileged than URMs from very wealthy families

Idk, before the decision ,opponents were telling us this was an important step forward to a color blind society. You'd think they'd be crowing about how we're closer to a meritocracy now that undeserving URMs have been shown the door. And supporters were telling us the sky would fall oi AA were abolished, but no one is acting like the sky is falling now. Basically no one wants to touch it.

It would be one thing if it was just ivies, which people hate, but this story is about the whole T80, which includes a lot of state flagships.

I think people - on both sides - are in denial about the size of the gaps that exist between URM students and whites/Asians. Not gaps, chasms.

They think it'll be a few less blacks here and there. But it's gonna be a 30% or more decline. If AOs really juke it. No one is ready for this.

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.

The comments on migrant and affirmative action articles in NYT always more negative than positive commenters. Considering the average subscriber is more liberal than the average American, I normally take it as a sort of litmus test politicians, institutions, etc. have gone too far to the left on some topics. WSJ commenters are much more conservative on almost every issue.

Yes, I think the NYT comment page is a good insight into what positions are popular and what positions are political losers.

The NYT comments are extremely pro-reproductive rights and pro-public education, so the idea that they are hidden conservatives is way off. The issue is that a lot of progressive leftist positions have become extremely unpopular across the board. DEI is one of them. Trans rights (particularly where that means girls and women suffer) is another.

Agree w both these comments. The NYT subscribers are generally Biden-voting, college graduate demo. Not young/not old. When you’ve lost them, time to rethink the policy.

+1
I’m a NYT subscriber, Anyone But Trump, Biden voter, pro choice, kids in public school. And agree that most comments on immigration and education reflect what’s now a moderate position which means not in line with progressive positions.

Another reason why this board should not be completely anonymous. This does not jive with most moderate left. Either this is a fake poster, or you are right wing but not for Trump, and do you really subscribe? Whatever the case, this does not seem indicative of many NYT subscribers.

And political lobby entities are subscribing to influence the conversation in comments. The whole political spamming on various socyal media, comment boards, etc is a real thing. That's what organizations raise money and invest in, not commercials. How else will they influence people? I see tge rhetoric ftom this article again and again here. ‘America Is Under Attack’: Inside the Anti-D.E.I. Crusade https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Sure, it's not as prevalent on NYT, and there are varied points of view on the article (like emphasizing ECE), but most in higher ed would be thinking along those lines. And, the major detractors (like the people asserting intelligence with race) are not the majority view.

Well said.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Racial diversity is NOT more important than economic diversity. Anyway, most people disagree with you, so your opinion is irrelevant.

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.

All your extrapolation yields an inaccurate assessment. Here's the problem. Diversity is not about the white male. It's about a rich educational environment. Diverse experiences, races, geographies, world views, etc enrich the educational value of any university body.

Curious, where, how, or when is a white male (or an Asian male for that matter) celebrated?

Scenario 4 is the dream but, sadly, it has remained just that even after years of effort by very smart individuals and very motivated institutions.

Until that nut is cracked, all secondary schools should have to report average gpa to effectuate scenario 3; secondary school PSAT and SAT info is already known to all colleges.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's telling that most of this thread is about side issues like "are Jews white?", "what are the demographics of the NYT comments section?", etc.

No one wants to discuss the fact that there are going to be a lot fewer URMs on T80 college campuses next fall. Neither supporters of AA nor opponents of it seem interested in this fact.

Weird.

It's obvious why the opponents don't care. Supporters likely believe that those might be compensated with lower income populations from all races, which might be less privileged than URMs from very wealthy families

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’ll agree to disagree!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

+1
I think that goes for the vast majority of Americans.

White people don't want diversity.

MAGA, right?

Well, not just MAGA. White liberals, too. And don't forget about Asians. Or Hispanics. And the problem isn't "diversity"; it's black people they don't like very much.

In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the state to provide equal funding for school districts. As long as public schools are funded primarily through the local tax base and not through a single statewide monetary source, there will always be a vast disparity between wealthy and middle class, white school districts and poorer, black school districts. (Interestingly, one year later, that same Supreme Court ruled school districts that failed to fund English language specifically for Chinese students to receive the same quality education as their white peers were in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).)

Neither white liberals nor white conservatives have any desire to upset this status quo. Conservatives don't believe that black students can be educated no matter how much money is invested in them. https://www.epi.org/publication/unfinished-march-public-school-segregation/; https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/53.pdf.

Liberals are not as strident in this belief, but their actions make clear they're not exactly crazy about sending their children to schools with more than a smattering of black kids. The most racially segregated states in the Union for public school students: New York and California. https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/news/press-releases/2021-press-releases/report-shows-school-segregation-in-new-york-remains-worst-in-nation.

Asian families have long associated excellence in education as a product of white-majority schools and often sought remedy from the courts to avoid their children sitting next to black schoolchildren. https://time.com/4533476/lum-v-rice-water-tossing-boulders/. Hispanic parents share their Asian counterparts' low regard for black schools and students. Both groups vehemently oppose any efforts to increase the number of black students at white-majority schools they perceive as offering an elite education. https://news.utexas.edu/2022/01/25/new-york-school-leaders-can-help-eliminate-parents-racial-avoidance/; https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/perspectives/new-york-citys-plan-diversify-specialized-high-schools-racist-toward-asian.